1921-05-20

THE SPEAKER'S CHAIR


Right Hon. ARTHUR MLIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King:
That the grateful thanks of this House he extended to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, as Joint Presidents, and to the members of the Empire Parliamentary Association, United Kingdom Branch, for the Speaker's Chair presented on their Ibehalf this day by the Rt. Hon. James W. Lowther, and that Mr. Speaker do inform the donors of the high appreciation of this House for the gift and for the expressions of goodwill which aooompany and will ever be associated with it, and of the great honour which has been shown by the welcome visit of the Rt. Hon. James W. Lowther.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
EXPRESSION OF THANKS TO BIGHT HON. Mr. LOWTHER
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King:
That this House deeply appreciates the honour paid it by the visit of the Rt. Hon. James W. Lowther, late Speaker of the House of Commons of Great Britain, for the purpose of presenting the Speaker's Chair, and that Mr. Speaker do convey to 'him the thanks of this House for his visit and its sense of appreciation of the high honour and compliment which St implies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: I beg to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King:
That what has been said this day at the formal presentation of the Speaker's Chair, which took place prior to the opening of the House, by

His Excellency the Governor General, the Rt. Hon. J. W. Dowther, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden, the Hon. Mackenzie King, the Hon. T. A. Crerar, and the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, be printed in 'Hansard' as a prefix to the proceedings of the day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1920-Sir Henry Drayton.

Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am not able-indeed, I am not sure that I would be physically able to do so-to lay on the Table a return asked for some long time ago, ordered by the House at the instance of the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) calling for a list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway. I have made inquiries, however, and I find that the return was asked for from the Grand Trunk through the President, Mr. Kelly, on October 23, 1919. He was asked to supply the names of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company as they appeared in the books of the company on October 19, 1919. I find that there has arrived a large packing case completely filled, containing the names of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway; that it contains over 70,000 names and addresses; that it is available in the Records Branch of the Department of Railways and Canals and is there for the inspection of the hon. member for Cham-bly-Vereheres or any other member of the House or the Senate who desires to examine them. The memorandum furnished to me says that unfortunately it is not in duplicate but in handwritten form, on very large and specially ruled and printed sheets with nine separate columns covering each particular class of Grand Trunk stock. This list has been required in connection with the' Grand Trunk arbitration proceedings, and had to be sent twice to Montreal. It is in the Department at present and is available.



PRIVATE BILLS FROM THE SENATE-BURST AND SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 167, respecting certain Patents of Autographic Register Systems, Limited. -Mr. DuTremblay.
Bill No. 168, to incorporate Edmonton and Mackenzie River Railway Company.- Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).,
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Rose Seigler Schatsburg.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Eudora Edith Webster Perry.-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of John Howard Ferguson.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Edith Myrtle Barnes.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Sherman Talmage Smith.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of John Hurst. -Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Florence Gibb.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Norah Beatrice McDonald.-Mr. Douglas (Strath-cona).
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Mabel Alice Allport.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Abbie Jane Harris Wigle.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Walter Edwin Sloan.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of James Leslie Glover.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of William Gordon Gordon.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Anna Elizabeth Walker.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Arthur Wilfred Rigby.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Albert Sidney McPherson.-Mr. Clarke (Wellington).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Ernest Alfred Ballard.-Mr. Clarke (Wellington).
Bill No. 186, for the relief of William Gladstone Cook.-Mr. Clarke (Wellington).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W..L. MACKENZIE KING (leader
of the Opposition) : Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say when Judge Snider's report will be brought down?
Arthur Meighen: I have heard nothing at all
about the report. As far as I know, the report, after the final sitting, is not in. I am informed just now that it is not in.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Not been
made?


Arthur Meighen: No.



VICTORIA DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Is it intended that the House
shall sit on May 24?


Arthur Meighen: It is not the intention to sit on May 24.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
1. Resolved, That lit is expedient to amend The Customs Tariff, 1907, -by inserting the following section immediately after section 8:
8a. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, goods, other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous or alcoholic liquors and articles specified in Schedule A of The West Indies Trade Agreement Act, the produce or manufacture of
British Honduras;
Bermuda;
the Bahamas;
J amaica;
Turks and Caicos Islands ;
the Leeward Islands (Antigua, St. Chr-isto-pher-JNevis, Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin Islands) ;
the Windward Islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia) ;
Barbados;
Trinidad and Tobago; and
British Guiana
when (imported direct therefrom shall not be subject at any time to more 'than fifty per centum of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the General Tariff under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland - Revenue.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY:	As regards the
duty on tobacco and manufactured cigars, is the duty based on the weight or on the value of the tobacco?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: This is not an ad valorem duty, it is a duty based on the pound weight of the leaf tobacco. The duty is 40 cents a pound, fixed, of course, by the pound weight.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: The quality of the tobacco has nothing whatever to do with the duty?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Has the minister not received representations or requests from cigar makers and others, especially the labouring class, in regard to this duty, inasmuch as it affects the price especially of cheap cigars? We do now see on the market as many cigars for five and ten cents as we used to see, and I understand that this is due to the fact that the duty
is based, not upon the value, but upon the weight. In the United States, I am informed, the duty is based upon the value and not upon the weight, so as to allow ordinary people to be able to get a better cigar at the same price. Some years ago I put similar questions to the Minister of Finance and he looked into the matter, and he was to investigate it more fully. Has any progress been made in this direction?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are two duties that are related to the matter to which my hon. friend refers. In the first instance, of course, we have our duty on the leaf tobacco, the raw material, and that duty, which is an excise duty is, as I have stated, 40 cents a pound. As my hon. friend intimates, many requests have been made for a change. Growers of tobacco-and we now grow a great deal of tobacco in Canada,- on the one hand have asked for a customs duty rate of $1 per pound on their product, and on the other hand manufacturers and the cigar makers, to whom my hon. friend has
4 p.m. referred, have made requests looking, not to an increase, but to a very substantial decrease in duties upon tobaccos manufactured in this country. The particular duty to which my hon. friend is referring is the excise duty on manufactured cigars. There is a great deal to be said on both sides, but it has been a subject which we felt, in view of other considerations, we could not at the present time interfere with. No change is made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2. Resolved, that Schedule A to the Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter 15 of the Acts of 1913, by chapter 26 of the Acts of 1914. and by chapter 5 of the Acts of 1914 (second session) be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 20, 21, 22, 23, 39fo, 77a, 101, 101a, 103, 104, 110, 111, 113, 134, 135, 150, 151, 153, 156, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164 and 165, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of Customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duties be inserted in said Schedule A:
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall this resolution be taken item by item? Carried.
Items. Nos. 20 to 113 inclusive agreed to.
On item No. 134:

Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff.		
			Tariff.	Tariff.
134	All sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item No. 135, when not exceeding eighty-eight degrees of	$2.00	$2.00polarization, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not ex-	*1.50	ceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds when exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceed-	*1.52	*2.03	$2.03ing ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding	$1.54	$2.06	$2.06ninety-one degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding	$1.56	$2.08	$2.08ninety-two degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceed-	$1.59	$2.12	$2.12ing ninety-three degrees, per one hundred pounds... when exceeding ninety-three degrees but not exceed-	$1.61	$2.15	$2.15ing ninety-four degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceed-	$1.63	$2.18	$2.18ing ninety-five degrees, per one hundred pounds.. when exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding	$1.65	$2.20	$2.20ninety-six degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceed-	$1.68	$2.24	$2.24ing ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds... when exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceed-	$1.70	$2.27	$2.27ing ninety-eight degrees per one hundred pounds,... when exceeding ninety-eight degrees but not exceed-	$1.72	$2.30	$2.30ing ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds.... when exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred	$1.79	$2.39	$2.39pounds	
Provided that refined sugar shall be entitled to entry under the British Preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, that such refined sugar has been manufactured wholly from raw sugar produced in the British colonies and possessions, and not otherwise.	$1.79	$2.39	$2.39


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, this is really the most important item. I wonder if my hon. friend has made any comparative figures showing the relation of the raw sugar to the refined article. The sugar duties are very complicated, I know, varying at every degree of- the polaris-copic test, and it is very difficult for the ordinary reader to comprehend them, and one might easily make errors of calculation. I would be glad if my hon. friend could give the committee any comparative figures showing how far he is changing the duty on the raw material, and how far he is changing the duty as respects the refined article.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The matter is, as my hon. friend says, extremely complicated. We have to start with the preference which we are obliged to give the West Indies. Apply that minimum preference of 25 per cent, we start out with a base line, and having made that base line we make our Calculations; accordingly. There is a slight difference between the base line adopted for the British preferential tariff and that adopted for the general tariff. That had to be done in order to give effect to the preference called for
in the Act. The old base line for the British preferential was $1.52. That was the base line for the first of these items in No. 134. That is now being reduced to $1.50. Then for the purpose of carrying out the 25 per cent base line, the general tariff which was $1.93 becomes $2, and the matter works out progressively from that base line. The really important item, so far as the cost of sugar in this country is concerned, is the ninety-nine degree item, which gives us a rate of $1.79 for the British preferential tariff. The margin of protection on raw sugar which results, in the first instance, from item No. 134, and from item No. 135, does not in any way enlarge the protection on refining in Canada. This ninety-nine degree item, which is really the item of importance, resulting in a tax under the British preferential of $1.79, and $2.39 under the general tariff, may he compared to the tax in the United Kingdom for polarization, not under 98 degrees. The equivalent rate under the English law is $5.5763 as compared with our $2.39.


William Stevens Fielding: The matter is extremely complicated, I know. In the case of refined sugar you have to take 99 or 100

degrees, because it is of a high character, but if you take raw sugar at any figure, say, 90 degrees, perhaps the simplest way of explaining the matter would be for the minister to say what has been the duty heretofore on that, and what the new duty will be, and then we will see whether we are or are not having an increase on the raw material. If we make a similar computation with respect to the refined article, we can see how it works out. I am inclined to think, on first view- although I speak with reservation, -because I know how difficult it is to make exact calculations in these matters-that what my hon. friend has done is to reduce the rates of duty on raw material and increase the.duty on the refined article. It looks that way, but I do not wish to assert that too positively, because it would be necessary to make a careful computation before one could speak with absolute certainty. I thought my hon. friend would have some information on that point. Take sugar at 90 degrees; what does it pay now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ninety-six degrees is the standard on which raw sugar is really purchased.


William Stevens Fielding: Much of it comes below that. A good deal of sugar is imported below 96.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The old item for raws under the British preferential tariff was $1.03J for 96 degrees as against 85.7 under the new order. The item which determines the question of protection is the general tariff item, which amounted to $1.37i, and the margin which is required by the agreement in connection with that, in schedule A of the treaty is 86.016 cents. The hon. gentleman will see that we have cut that down very materially in order to get that spread. If we did not cut it down on the British preferential side in order to get that spread there would have been a large increase in the customs duty. We expect to get no more revenue at all, but we hope to be able to hold the present revenue.


William Stevens Fielding: The raw material, practically speaking, will all come in under the West India Treaty, and we get our raw sugar very largely from the West Indies now. The aim of the West India agreement, very properly, is to increase purchases from the West Indies, and therefore I think it would be quite right to assume that the raw material will practically all come in under that agreement. If I understand my hon. friend on sugar of

96 degrees the rate hitherto charged was $1.03, and a fraction, and the new rate will be 85 cents. There is, therefore, a distinct reduction of 18 cents on the raw material. Is that correct?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is perfectly correct so far as the duty on the raw material is concerned. It has been cut down. We had to cut it down, or we should have had to increase the rate very much on the general standard. Although your preference is low, you do not buy at low prices. The exporter from the West Indies meets the competition which is open from the other fields, and I have been fortified in that conclusion by the remarks of my hon. friend in discussing the same question on previous occasions. Of course, human nature being what it is, my hon. friend was perfectly right; the benefit on all these preferences, generally speaking, will not come to the Canadian consumer; the benefit accrues to the exporter from the favoured country, unless, of course, the volume of trade is such that that advantage cannot be taken. But the fact is that the advantage can easily be taken. If I remember rightly, less than 50 per cent of our raw sugar manufactured in Canada comes from the British West Indies. I know I am quite right in saying that not more than 50 per cent comes from the West Indies, and it is perfectly obvious that there is not going to be any sugar bought in Canada at the lower standard having regard to that 50 per cent, and at the higher rate, having regard to the other 50 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: The question as to
who gets the benefit is a rather complicated one, and it is not necessary, for our purpose, to discuss it. We must' confine ourselves to the duties; what their effect may be is a matter of argument. But if the legitimate aim on the West India agreement is to increase West India trade, it is a fair assumption that the bulk of our raw sugar-using that term broadly-will come from the West Indies. As a matter of fact, it comes largely from that section now, and under the agreement it will come in increasing qualities. Now, the rate on that raw sugar, which hitherto was $1.03, has been reduced to 85 cents, a distinct reduction-


Henry Lumley Drayton: 85.7.


William Stevens Fielding: -a distinct reduction in favour of the refiner of 18 cents. There is no doubt about that. The only possible question is how much sugar may come from some other quarter and pay a

higher rate; but as the great aim of the West India agreement is for us to buy all the sugar we can from the West Indies, it is not unfair to assume that the bulk of our sugar will come from there, and to the extent that it does the refiner has an advantage of 18 cents, as compared with the previous rate. Having established the fact that the refiner is to get the raw material at a lower rate, let us turn to the question of the refined article.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You will have to establish that.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I have stated
the matter fairly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a
lower duty, but not a lower rate; it will not make the slightest difference in his rate.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not speaking
of anything but the duty now. I am taking my information from my hon. friend, and I speak with all deference, because I know . I could easily make a mistake in the matter. But I state the case again. Assuming that our raw sugar comes from the West Indies-and that is unquestionably the aim of the treaty, although, of course, occasionally, sugar will be imported from other places'-the rate hitherto paid having been $1,031 on sugar of 96 degrees, and the new rate being 85 cents, there is a distinct reduction to the refiner of 18 cents per hundred pounds.
Now if you turn to the refined article I think my hon. friend will find he is working the thing the, other way. When the West Indian Agreement was going through I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it did not imply a reduction on the raw material and he said it did. I then asked " What about the refined article?" He replied " That will have to be dealt with under the general tariff revision". Now, according to my figures I find thac while my hon. friend has reduced the duty on the raw material he has increased the duty on refined sugar, which is the only thing the people use. For all the purposes of refined sugar you have got to consider the operation of the preference-it will come from Great Britain, not from the United States. You are not going to get any considerable quantity of refined sugar from the United States. The most of that sugar that is coming in will come in under the British preference and, as I say, if my figures are correct, my hon. friend has reduced the duty on the raw material for the benefit of the refiner, and he has increased the duty on refined sugar which
is the only thing the people use. Now there is the possibility that an error has been made in the calculation and I would like to ask my hon. friend to check the figures.


Mr. STEVENS:: Before the Minister of Finance answers my hon. friend, I would like to point out to him that a very large quantity of sugar, in fact nearly all that is used in the western sugar refinery, comes from Fiji.


William Stevens Fielding: Fiji is a British possession and is entitled to the preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not included in what my hon. friend referred to, the West Indian reciprocal agreement.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is
right. There would be a shade of difference in that respect, but he is quite correct.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


William Stevens Fielding: No. I would like to have an answer from the Minister. He is reducing the duty to the refiner and I would like to know how the duty is increased on refined sugar.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just
trying to follow a calculation and I did not quite catch what my hon. friend said.


William Stevens Fielding: There was nothing new in my last observation, it was merely a repetition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend will find I am absolutely correct in this:	Competitive sugars in
the market, refined sugars, have always been foreign sugars. They have not been sugars manufactured in the West Indies, they have not been sugars manufactured under circumstances which can permit them to come in under the British preferential tariff. What we import under that tariff are raw sugars. The real competition in refined sugar-which as my hon. friend very properly says is the only thing that the people are interested in-is in foreign refined sugars chiefly from the United States where they get from time to time a very large quantity. Besides that there is a certain amount of refined sugar which comes in from the Orient; but the real competition, which affects the only market the Canadian consumer is directly interested in, is in refined sugar which comes from the United States. Taking refined sugar as of 99 and 100 degrees, as it is refined and sold, under the old tariff the rate per hundred pounds was 71 i cents. Under the present tariff the rate becomes

71 cents. In so far as the refiner in Canada is concerned his protection has been reduced by one-half of a cent having regard to his real competition. So far as regards the production of the raw materials for beet-root sugar on the other hand, the protection to the grower of beets has been largely increased. As the hon. gentleman says the public are interested in refined sugar, , ajid that is exactly the position.


William Stevens Fielding: The duties on refined sugar are so high that under ordinary conditions very little comes in. This last year or so we have had abnormal conditions, and it is not perhaps fair to judge by that, but a comparatively small part of refined sugar is imported into Canada. We produce our own refined sugar, and I am not desirous that it should be otherwise, but I think that my hon. friend will find that he has-whether he intended to do it or not-given the refiners some advantage they did not possess before. However, I do not want to delay the passing of the items at the present time. Before the matter is finally disposed of I will be very glad to check up the figures my hon. friend has given and see whether my own interpretation is different from his. I think we may take this item and the next one together because they are related one to the other.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Before we pass this item I would like to get an explanation from the minister of the proviso at the foot of item 134 which reads as follows:
Provided that refined sugar shall be entitled to entry under the British Preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, that such refined sugar has been manufactured wholly from raw sugar produced in the British Colonies and possessions, and not otherwise.
Suppose that raw sugar produced in the island of Trinidad was imported into the United States and refined there. Can it come into Canada under the British preference?


William Stevens Fielding: 'No.


John Howard Sinclair: This
language would seem to imply that it could, because it says that sugar that has been produced in the British colonial possessions, and refined is to have the benefit of the British preference. It is not declared that the sugar must come direct from the country of origin, apparently it may come from anywhere provided it is produced in a British colony. That is the

meaning of the language as I understand it. If I am incorrect in that understanding I would like to have an explanation from the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I am responsible for that language and I would like to explain the situation. Of course, nothing from the United States comes under the preferential tariff, whether it be sugar or anything else. The object of that clause is this: The aim under the former arrangement-and I am quite sure we are not desirous of changing it now- was to give a bona fide preference to the West Indies. If the West Indies can send their sugar to England and Scotland and have it refined there and come into Canada that sugar would bona fide be entitled to the preference, whereas if other sugars coming from foreign countries were sent to England and Scotland and refined there, if the British preference applied, it would not carry out the purpose of our agreement.


John Howard Sinclair: It
would be very easy to have a definition making it clear that the provision would apply to sugar coming from Great Britain or some of the British possessions:	The
present language is certainly open to the construction I have placed on it. Apparently the sugar may be refined anywhere provided the raw sugar was produced in a British colony. That seems to me to be the meaning of the sentence. If the intention is that it should apply where sugar produced in a British colony like Trinidad or Jamaica, and was afterwards refined in Great Britain or in any British possession, and subsequently introduced into Canada, it would be quite easy to claim language that would cover such a case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think anything has worked out wrongly or that there has been any real difficulty under the wording of this clause. It is a clause which was, I think, the subject of a great deal of careful study by my hon. friend the ex-Finance Minister in introducing what is really, after all, the whole bases of this particular kind of trade convention -his British preferential tariff of 1897. The wording of that Act stands unchanged, and we are merely continuing what in the light of experience has been found to work well.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit that the
clause standing alone would be capable of that interpretation, but as the British

preference is distinctly confined to British countries, I think it is quite evident you have to read that into the clause.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: For years it has worked out all right under this interpretation.


Mr. PEDLOW:: The resolution says distinctly that articles specified in schedule A. shall not be subject at any time to more than fifty per cent of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the general tariff. This means that a number of these items scheduled in the general tariff would be allowed to come into Canada at a very much lower rate of duty than the same articles coming from Great Britain.
I am sure that cannot be the intention of the Government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know anything in that section in which Great Britain is interested in the slightest. She does not grow sugar, limes or shaddocks. This is done having regard particularly to West Indian products, and the Act is entirely followed in the present resolution.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does not Great Britain manufacture sugar?


William Stevens Fielding: Not raw sugar.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sugar is
exempt from that provision.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What about fruits, items
103	and 104?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no preference given to those items; those are fruits preserved in brandy.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The resolution states, of course, the exception, "goods, other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous, or alcoholic liquors;" but these items 103 and
104	refer distinctly to preserved fruits. We get a quantity of preserved fruits from England and Scotland. Unless you dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the resolution, the department is likely to put a strictly literal interpretation on the Act, as, for instance, what happened last year in their classification of manufacturers, resulting in an immense amount of trouble. I would like to see this Bill put in such form that when it is passed no room will be left open for any expensive law suits -expensive on the Government and on individuals-caused by (too literal rulings of the department.


William Stevens Fielding: If Great Britain produces the same articles, undoubtedly the argument of my hon. friend is correct and
me rates of duty would vary. The only answer of the minister is that Great Britain does not produce the same things as a rule. It may be so in regard to fruit. It is a well understood principle that in no case will we charge Great Britain a higher duty than any other country. But as this resolution is worded there is nothing to say we shall not charge goods from Great Britain a higher rate than similar goods from the West Indies, and I am afraid we are going to do it under this agreement if there is any competition.


George Green Foster: It was expressly provided in the agreement with the West Indies that we should be at perfect freedom to make arrangements, preferential and otherwise, and that the West Indies should have the same liberty. The West Indies gives us a quid pro quo for which it gets a concession from us. Great Britain does not give us that quid pro quo, so we have a perfect right under the agreement with the West Indies to charge the lesser rate of duty agreed upon, and to charge on articles coming from the other parts of the Empire a preferential rate.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is getting back to the very old ground that we should not give England a preference unless she gives us a quid pro quo.


George Green Foster: But we do.


William Stevens Fielding: We do without a quid pro quo. My right hon. friend says we are justified in not giving it to England because she does not give us a quid pro quo.


George Green Foster: England has .a preferential tariff of thirty per cent now, although she does not give us a quid pro quo. We do not take that preference away from her; but when we make an agreement with the West'Indies under which they give us reciprocity, and we give it to them in return, I do not think there is any injustice done to England.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If you will permit me to refer back to the items that have already been passed to clear up the situation, items Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23, I think it will be admitted that if these schedules are to obtain as they stand there will be a distinct discrimination against Great Britain in respect to those items. They are cocoa, paste or "liquor," preparations of cocoa or chocolate in powder form, preparations of cocoa or chocolate not otherwise provided for and confectionery. According to my reading of the resolution, those will be imported from

the Wejt Indies at a very much lower rate of duty than from Great Britain under this Act as. it reads. Therefore we are discriminating against Great Britain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I appreciate the point my hon. friend makes. The fact is that none of those items he has referred to are produced in the West Indies; they have none of those manufactures there. They are very much interested in the cocoa bean, Item 77A, and, indeed, that is the item which necessitates the changes that my hon. friend has referred to. The West Indies produce the cocoa bean, and England manufactures it into these commodities, as my hon. friend says. We also manufacture it into the same commodities. The West Indies are only interested in getting their preference in connection with the cocoa bean, which is given to them as called for by the agreement.
Supplementary to what my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has said as to the general principle, I would say that while England must always get her goods in certainly at as low a rate, if not lower, than foreign countries,-and that has been pretty well accepted of late- it has not been applied and extended to other British possessions. I would also point out that that principle was borne in mind by the hon. gentleman in bringing down his British preferential tariff. He held the general principle clearly in mind as to the effect of the British preferential tariff having regard to the benefit that was to be given to England, but he did not regard that as fettering his action in connection with what ought to be done to other and perhaps more necessitous parts of the British Empire, or to other parts of the British Empire where perhaps it pays Canada to work up a more intensive trade. For example, I direct attention to section 8 of the customs tariff implementing the arrangement made by my hon. friend in 1907, which says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, fish and other products of the fisheries of Newfoundland may be imported into Canada free of ail customs duty until otherwise determined by the Governor-dn-Council, by order published in the Canada Gazette.
The direct result of that was to provide that Newfoundland could get her fish and fish products into the Canadian market free while Great Britain had to pay a British preferential tariff. There is no change in principle at all; it is simply a case of fish in one instance and cocoa beans in the other.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not quite see the force of the illustration with regard tb Newfoundland. However, the point raisejd by the hon. gentleman from Renfrew is in regard to preserved fruits, etc. Of all the articles mentioned, only one, I think, can be regarded as manufactured by Great Britain. Now, the revenue obtained by insisting upon a difference in rate on this one article would not amount to much, and I cannot see that any great harm would be done from the revenue point of view to say that any of these articles coming from Great Britain shall come at the rate granted the West Indies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The particular fruit item that the hon. gentleman refers to gives the preference to nobody; it is the same all round.


William Stevens Fielding: That is so; I had not
noticed that.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But it doesn't appear in the item, and a merchant placing an order for preserved fruits from the West Indies might expect to get that product at a rate fifty per cent less than the rate given in the general tariff, but when he came to make his entry at the customs house he would find that the ruling was otherwise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: These items
refer to fruits preserved in alcohol.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Suppose a British manufacturer, seeing the advantage of having these cocoa beans manufactured into paste or chocolate powder, installed a plant at some point in the West Indies and turned out the product there, thus obtaining the benefit of this preferential tariff of fifty per cent as against his competitor whose factory is established at some point in England, what is my hon. friend's opinion as to
the result of that condition?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
question that would arise there would be whether we thought it worth while to continue our own activities in the production of sweets and that sort of thing, or whether we should bring them to an end. That would really be the consideration should such an eventuality arise. I do not think, however, that there is much danger in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 135, 150, 151 and 153 agreed to.

On item 156:
Tariff Items	British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.156	Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; whisky and all spirituojis or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel-oil, or any substance knowui as potato spirit or potato oil, methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyroxylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits, absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liquers of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p.; containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit, per gallon of the strength of	$10.00	$10.00	$10.00
William Stevens Fielding: Does this cover alcohol used for manufacturing purposes, by chemists and others? As regards spirits for beverage purposes, I do not want to make any complaint;-that is a matter in which the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec are interested; the other provinces cannot get any liquor, so that there is no need of making any fuss about the matter. Has my hon. friend received representations in regard to alcohol used for manufacturing purposes? I have had telegrams from druggists stating that their business is seriously affected by the increased duty on alcohol for chemical and manufacturing purposes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is dealt with under the excise item. This is the customs item.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not covered by this item?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I read in the press that the Attorney General of British Columbia has expressed the opinion that this Parliament cannot impose a tax on alcohol which is provincial property. Has the Government any legal advice on the matter?
in the amendment of the Customs Act of 1917.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like the
impression to prevail that the Government of Quebec, at least, is entering a trade under the law that was enacted last session. It is certainly not to enter the trade that this law was passed; on the contrary, it is rather to serve the purpose of temperance, to remove temptation and to avoid abuses which existed formerly. The question of making money not only is secondary, but does not exist at all. The Government have no right to treat the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec as traders in the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very
much pleased to hear what my hon. friend says, namely, that the province is not in this business for trade. The province is in it for the purpose of reducing the consumption of drink; to make respectable something which my hon. friend does not think has been quite respectable in the past; to perform a useful service. That business paid taxes in the past, and as the province is not in it for money, the imposition of these rates cannot in the slightest degree interfere with the fruition of its benevolent object.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, the position of the Government is that when governments become traders, their trading operations are subject to taxation. Of course, if that were not so, it would be possible for a Provincial Government to remove practically entirely articles of taxation from this Government. The principle is not a new one, because it was introduced by this House into the statute book


Mr. ROBB:: If I understood correctly
the Minister of Finance a moment ago, he said that the Department of Justice advised them that when a province entered upon business trading, it is subject to taxation. My recollection is that at a recent session of this Parliament-and I am not sure whether it was the present Minister of Finance or his predecessor-on a question somewhat similar to this, a ques-

tion of taxation, the Minister of Finance * gave a ruling that the hydro-
5 p.m. electric companies of Ontario were exempt from the effects of taxation, while incorporated companies doing business in other provinces were subject to taxation. It was very strongly contended upon this side that that was an unfair attitude to take. The Miniser of Finance of that day ruled that the provinces doing business were exempt from taxation. Either the Department of Justice is giving different advice in this regard, or the Minister of Finance, at a previous session, offered an opinion without having consulted the Department of Justice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The situation is hardly as bad as that. Ip fact, I would be only too happy to say at once that we will treat Quebec in this matter in precisely the same way as we have treated the hydro-electric. We are not here seeking to tax the income of Quebec. We are saying that imports of whiskey shall not become exempt because they are' imported in the name of the province for the purpose of reselling. I think that is the position taken by the hon. member for Quebec East.


James Alexander Robb: I do not take that position.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the position taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia, and I thought my hon. friend was a little sympathetic to that position. The Ontario Government, the Government of every province, nay further, the departments of this Government themselves, are obliged to pay customs duties on whatever they import into this country.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister considered the advisability of taking an inventory of the millions- of dollars worth of whiskeys and wines stored in the cellars of the wealthy people of this province and of some of the other provinces which have gone "dry," and of imposing the additional taxes upon this hoarded liquor?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the hon. gentleman advise that that is within our power? I know that he is a lawyer of standing. Has he considered that our taxation is a customs tax in one case and an excise tax in the other; that it is a tax on transactions? Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the Dominion has such rights over civil property that it can go into the cellars of his fellow-townsmen and tax the contents of those cellars?


William Stevens Fielding: The language of the
British North America Act is that the Dominion has power to collect moneys by all or any means of taxation; there is no limit, so far as a tax is concerned. As to the right to go in and take possession of any person's cellar, that is another matter, but the right to levy a tax on the contents of the cellar is beyond question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid
one would involve the other. How could you tell what he had in his cellar?


Mr. MICHAUD:: These goods in the
cellar are looked upon as sacred, and I do not believe we should go so far as has been suggested.


Mr. NESBITT:: I understand there is a rebate of duty of 99 per cent on alchohol used in hospitals. How do you keep track of the quantity used?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That will
come up under a separate item.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish to correct the minister's impression. I offered no opinion as to the merits or demerits of the legal opinion of the Attorney General of British Columbia; I merely asked whether the Government had had any legal advice in the matter, and I stated that it was not fair to consider the provinces as traders. I really think that this is an exorbitant tax. Some may criticise the laws which have been adopted in British Columbia and Quebec, but I say that these provinces are acting in good faith and are doing their best even for the cause of temperance. I think this is purely a provincial question and I say that the Federal Government should not step in immediately and impose an almost prohibitive tax on liquor.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that is a point that we ought to clear up. This is not a prohibitive tax. There is a pretty good deal of whisky drunk in Great Britain -some people think, a great deal too much, -and the British Government derives a splendid revenue from that source. The tax in England, if I remember rightly, is $17.60 per gallon, while the corresponding rate here is $10 per gallon. You do not have to pay the English tax on liquor exported to this country. It comes over here simply on the basis of cost production, plus whatever profit the liquor producer thinks he can get; there is no British Government tax on it. It has been suggested that it is impossible for people to do business under our tax. Well, how is that great volume of business carried on in Great Britain by private

people, who are at the expense of advertising and the like, which I suppose provincial governments will not be put to in this country, when their tax is many times greater than ours? An ordinary case of Scotch contains 1.7 gallons of taxable alcho-holic contents. That would make on the whole dozen bottles of whisky a tax of $17 in this country, as against a tax many times greater in Great Britain; that is, we are imposing a $17 tax against a ease of 12 bottles of Scotch, which is now being sold, if the price lists I have seen are correct, at the rate of $40, $45, and $50 per case. So, I am sure this tax will be hailed with delight.


Mr. JACOBS:: By whom?


Mr. PARENT:: Did I understand from
the minister that the tax has been raised from $5 to $10 per gallon?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, per
proof gallon.


Georges Parent: Would the minister tell
the committee what revenue he derived last year from this source when the tax was $5 a gallon?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry
I have not the figures here, but my recollection is that the total amount of spirits ' released from bond or imported was something like 3,500,000 gallons last year.


Georges Parent: Would the minister consider that that quantity yielded a large revenue?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would
have to consider any revenue small which is anything less than what we can reasonably get.


Georges Parent: I have no doubt the minister is animated by the very best motives in imposing such a tax, but I venture to think that by raising the duty to $10 per gallon he may fail of the object he has in mind. The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have both passed laws with a view to controlling the liquor trade and seeing that temperance shall prevail in their respective provinces; at least, that is the intention of the province of Quebec. By regulating the trade within their own limits they intend to have a better quality of liquor sold and distributed to the people, and at a reasonable price. I am afraid that if the duty is raised to $10 a gallon, as the minister proposes, the tax will be prohibitive, and it will have the effect of making some people manufacture all kinds
of bad whiskies and spirits that are unfit to drink, with bad results to the health of the people at large. So far as I am concerned, I want to protest against this increased tax. I do not think it is fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend would assist me. I do not want to do anything that is unfair in the slightest degree. 1 am told-I confess that I have no intimate knowledge of the whisky business-that alcohol, and pretty good alcohol at that, is easily produced in quantity at rates as low as 25 and 50 cents a gallon. During the war, when whisky was pretty dear generally, I am told that the soldiers in France when they were on leave were allowed to buy whisky free of all duty, and that the price for a bottle was only two shillings and six pence, or 60 cents a bottle.	.
What does my hon. friend think is fair? If it be true that the real value of whisky as sold in the military mess rooms was 60 cents a bottle, after paying the cost of getting it into France-


Mr. GRASS:: It does not designate the quantity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not
speaking of the large imperial measure; I am talking about the ordinary bottle, which contains about one-sixth of a gallon. If it be true that the real value of the whisky is 60 cents a bottle, then it can be supplied, less cost of transportation, overhead charges, etc., which I should not think would be very heavy, on a basis of $7.20 a case. But suppose 60 cents is too low; suppose you put it a $1 a bottle, which every one will admit is the very outside price to attach to whisky. Whisky is sold to-day at $3.75, some at $3.85, some at $4, and some a little higher. Let us take $4, as affording an easy basis of calculation. On the basis of $1 to the agency which handles the whole thing, the whole cost, with our duty, is only $29 a case, as against a return of $48, or a profit of $19 a case, subject to the necessary reduction for overhead expenses in connection with offices, salaries, etc. Under the circumstances I should think that the tax would be welcomed rather than objected to.


Ernest Lapointe: To further the cause of temperance, and perhaps, to help the revenue, I would advise the Quebec Government to charge a higher price when customers are citizens of the other provinces, especially Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item	British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.156a	Rum, per gallon of the strength of proof	
Provided, as to all goods specified in items No. 156 and No. 156a when of less strength than the strength of proof, that no reduction or allowance shall be made in the measurement thereof for duty purposes, below the strength of fifteen per cent under proof. Provided also, that when the goods specified in these two items are of greater strength than the strength of proof, the measurement thereof and the amount of duty payable thereon shall be increased in proportion for any greater strength than the strength of proof Provided further, that bottles and flasks and packages of gin, rum, whisky and brandy of all kinds, and imitations thereof, shall be held to contain the following quantities (subject to the provisions for addition or deduction in respect of the degree of strength), viz.:- Bottles, flasks and packages, containing not more than three-fourths of a gallon per dozen, as three-fourths of a gallon per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three-fourths of a gallon but not more than one gallon per dozen, as one gallon per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one gallon but not more than one and one-half gallon per dozen, as one and one-half gallon per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one and one-half gallon but not more than two gallons per dozen, as two gallons per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two gallons but not more than two and four-fifths gallons per dozen, as two and four-fifths gallons per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two and four-fifths gallons but not more than three gallons per dozen, as three gallons per dozen; Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three gallons but not more than three and one-fifth gallons per dozen, as three and one-fifth gallons per dozen. Provided further, that bottles or phials of liquors or special purposes, such as samples not for sale to the trade, may be entered for duty according to ictual measurement, under regulations prescribed :>y the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.	18.00	$10.00 .	$10.00 ,
Samuel William Jacobs: It seems to me that these excise taxes are extortionate, in view of the fact that in every province, except Quebec and British Columbia, liquor is used as a medicine. What is the logic of charging people these extortionate rates for medicines?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not.


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand it, before a bottle can be procured in Ottawa
I have this only from hearsay-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel William Jacobs: -one must secure a
doctor's certificate indicating that the person needs the liquor as medicine.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is in Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He takes it as a beverage, as a matter of fact.
[Mr. Lapointe. 1


Samuel William Jacobs: He takes it down as a beverage, but it is given as a medicine, otherwise the doctor could not possibly issue the certificate. I do not understand why these high prices should be charged.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In Ontario it' is used for rubbing.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely some distinction should be made between the use of liquor as a beverage and its use as a medicine..


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have not yet come to the question of excise duties. Under that item there will be provisions looking toward a gentle handling of whisky for medicinal purposes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the minister consider that as soon as a doctor issues a certificate, liquor can be used for medicinal purposes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I have said.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is the logical conclusion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are
qualifications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff Item	British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.159	Spirits and strong waters of any kind, mixed with any ingredient or ingredients, as being or known or designated as essences, extracts, or ethereal and	$10.00	$10.00	$10.00
Samuel Francis Glass: This item naturally affects the manufacturers of extracts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That also
comes under the excise item.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the excise item deal with imported liquors as well as native?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Stevens Fielding: These are regulations that apply to imports. The excise will apply only to goods manufactured at home; so that 'the provisions which my hon. friend is enacting really constitute another form of protection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is really an old and familiar form. So far as the production of alcohol is concerned, we have always had a bit of discrimination under
all laws. My recollection is that we started out with a discrimination of 20 per cent in favour of the local as against the imported article. The rate was $3 against $2.40, and now we have gone all the way from $3 to $10, and if we took the 20 per cent off, the general excise rate of $9 would be a good deal lower.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is to say, the excise is $9, as against $10 on the imported article.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 159a-anodynes, elixirs, tinctures or medicines-agreed to.
Item 160-alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, etc.-agreed to.
Tariff Item		British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.
				
162	Medicinal or medicated wines, including vermouth and ginger wine, containing not more than forty per cent of proof spirit		80 p.c.	80 p.c.	80 p.c.
Samuel William Jacobs: That seems to be a
rather heavy rate considering that these are medicinal wines.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is exactly the same as last year, there is no increase.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should the Government insist upon charging such exorbitant rates upon medicinal preparations. We have a Health Department which already costs us a million dollars a year to see that the health of the people is conserved and preserved, and when medicinal or medicated wines are prescribed by physicians, why make a charge of 80 per cent. It seems to me quite illogical having in view the fact
235	I
that we have an expensive health department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think perhaps the chief element of controversy in this particular clause is vermouth. Of course my hon. friend does not know very much about vermouth, but it is used in the preparation of cocktails.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is a cocktail?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only procurable now, they tell me, in Montreal or one or two other favoured cities. Speaking seriously, there is not much in the item of a medicinal character. Anyhow,


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
these are entirely in line with the general spirit duties.
Samuel William Jacobs: The word "medicinal" is used in the item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are
some very agreeable medicinal wines, wines that are quite nice to drink.


Ernest Lapointe: How does my hon.
friend know that?
trict where there is said to be quite a lot of iron. It is called a medicinal wine, but it is a first-rate drink.


John Howard Sinclair: The inference is that a cocktail is always meant to be medicinal.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is a life saver some times.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend is familiar with Vin Mariani. It is a standard wine and said to be of a medicinal character. The grapes from which it is produced are grown in a dis-
Item 163-wines of all kinds, n.o.p., including orange, lemon, strawberry, raspberry, elderberry and currant wine containing 26 per cent or less of proof spirits -agreed to.
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff. [DOT]	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.164	Wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, containing not more than forty per cent of proof spirit, whether imported in wood or in bottles (six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles to be held to contain a gallon), when the produce or manufacture of any British Colony or territory in the South African Customs	55 cents


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that 55 cents per gallon.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is an item that does not carry any protection.


William Stevens Fielding: The rate is applicable to wines the produce of any British colony or territory in the South African Customs Union Convention. The language seems to imply more than South Africa. Is it the old item?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the old item in connection with the French Treaty, Mr. Breadner tells me.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that the words "British colony or territory" are used in this item. May I ask whether this would apply to Palestine? The British Government now has a mandate over Palestine and the chief aiticle of export from that country is wine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What brand would that be?


Samuel William Jacobs: Mostly every kind of
brand is produced in Palestine. It is a land flowing with milk and honey. The Minister of Finance ought to remember that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do, but I
have never heard anything about wine.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, that expression
would cover everything. The British Government has a mandate over Palestine, and would that country now be regarded as a "British colony"?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think not. British South Africa as defined in the Act includes Cape Colony, Natal, Orange River Colony, the Transvaal, Rhodesia, Bechuanaland and Basutoland.


William Stevens Fielding: They all form part
of South Africa.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not make some provision in favour of those countries over which the British Government has a mandate?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item	[DOT] 	British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.165	Champagne and all other sparkling wines:- (a) in bottles containing each not more than a quart but more than a pint (old wine weasure),	$9.30	$9.30	$9.3030 p.c.(fc) in bottles containing not more than a pint each, but more than one-half pint (old wine measure),	$4.65	$4.65	$4.65and (c) in bottles containing one-half pint each or less,	30 p.c.$2.32	$2.32	$2.32and (d) in bottles containing over one quart each (old	30 p.c.$4.50	$4.50	$4.50and	30 p.c.
Samuel William Jacobs: Is there any change here over last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The duties
are the same as last year.


William Stevens Fielding: If they are the same
why are they set out here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We cancelled
all the luxury taxes last year. We are just re-enacting those duties that need to be re-enacted.


William Stevens Fielding: Is not that ad valorem duty a new thing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking generally
the duties on spirituous liquors were the same under the general, the intermediate and the preferential tariff, but in this case there is a difference-I do not know whether it was done in a former session and is simply being retained-in addition we have 30 per cent under the general tariff.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My recollection is that
has always been there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The rate was 30 per cent under the tariff of 1907.


William Stevens Fielding: The 30 per cent duty
is of long standing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. The
French Treaty was the reason why my hon. friend put it under the general tariff.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the minister made any estimate as to whether the added duties on alcoholic liquors and wines will produce more revenue than the old law yielded last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is very difficult to tell. I should not think the duties would produce as much and my reason for saying that is this-the importers, particu-
235i
larly the importers in Montreal who are really doing the business, did an enormous trade last year in importing liquors into Canada. The old figures were greatly exceeded; in fact they were much beyond what they were before if I remember rightly. I do not think we are very likely to have anything like the same volume again for a long time.


James Alexander Robb: Roughly speaking, the minister estimated in his Budget speech that the revenue from excise would be about $4,000,000 less than last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3-date when effective-agreed to.
On section 4-marking of goods and penalities.
William Stevens Fielding: This is quite a new condition and a very important one. Will the hon. gentleman give us some information concerning it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The object of the Bill is, as indicated, to let people know what goods they are buying. Speaking from recollection-I have not the American Act before me-I think this is broader than that Act, and broader than most legislation of this character. I believe a similar Act is in force in the United Kingdom in regard to certain articles. The list here is necessarily long because provision is made for marking anything which can be reasonably and properly marked without detriment. The matter came up objectively in connection with representations made by importers of goods from Great Britain. Representations were made by deputations in connection with the sale of wool, and they pointed out the pains which were being taken, for example, by the Scotch Woollen


S 712 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Merchants' Association to protect the public from fraud in connection with the sale of their goods. Every single yard of the cloth they manufacture bears at the top the name The Scotch Woollen Merchants' Association.
William Stevens Fielding: Not by law? -


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, they have been trying to get everybody to understand that unless so marked the article is not Scotch cloth. They complained that much cloth was sold as of Scotch production which had never seen Scotland. And the complaint was not at all confined to cloth. Statements were made to the effect that German knives and razors and other articles were sold without the slightest knowledge on the part of the purchaser that they were German, but on the representation that they were English. All that is sought to be done is to let the fact be known in such a way that the representation is affirmatively on the article. The matter is so simple that I am not relying on precedent, but on what is the best thing to do. On the one hand, this section removes opportunities for fraud, and, on the other hand, it enables the purchaser to know what goods he is purchasing. It seems to me on a general principle, having regard to the desirability of promoting both those objects, that the section ought to be adopted.


William Stevens Fielding: Any regulation which guards against fraud should have our sympathy. It is a question, however, as to how far it is wise to do this thing by law. There is something in a reputation which is established by the makers of a certain article, and the stamp on Scotch woollen goods is of as much value as if legally enacted. I am afraid this law will lead to some trouble. I notice in the next clause that provision is made for this section to come into force on September last. That would penalize people for goods they already have in their possession.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The next section provides for this regulation becoming effective on September 1, 1921.


William Stevens Fielding: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. Of course, if similar Acts are in force elsewhere we may be able to learn something from them. Would there not be difficulty in marking large bales of these goods? And when you say they are to be marked so as to indicate the country of origin, would goods from the Old Country have to be marked as coming from England, Scotland, Ireland or the United Kingdom?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should say
the United Kingdom.


William Stevens Fielding: Then you may have
some cheap English goods masquerading as Scotch goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Or still worse, Irish goods.


William Stevens Fielding: And you would be
doing some injustice to Old Ireland.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that is right.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is a ,
little vagueness in this section which may be embarrassing. I know the difficulty of going into details in regard to these things, but it is so hard to know where the mark can be placed on some articles. Take a man who has a roll of cloth in his shop, and he sells off twenty yards of it; the roll was marked on the edge; after selling twenty yards what evidence have you got on the remainder as to where it came from? The penalties are severe, and while the object is a good one, I rather think the hon. gentleman will find difficulty in enforcing the regulation.


John Howard Sinclair: I think Old Country firms are manufacturing goods now to be imported here this autumn, and therefore three months is not enough notice to all the world that all goods imported to Canada after September 1, 1921, have to be marked. I would say that six months' notice at least ought to be given.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should say you do not run any risk if you leave the date as it is, because any firm which is proud of its goods will take care to mark them so the public will know what they are buying. It is only those who are not proud of their goods who will not be anxious to mark them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I agree with the member for Shelburne and Queen's that in matters of this kind

indeed, in all matters- the public have a right to be protected. But the enforcement of a law of this class is absolutely impossible, having regard to the strict wording of the provision of it. During the last year we have had some difficulty in connection with the interpretation of an Act. We were assured by the minister in charge of the Bill when the legislation was before the House that it would be subject to a certain interpretation but when the customs officers came to enforce it they interpreted its provisions quite differently. The result was no end of trouble during the last year, including a law-suit

which has just been concluded, and which will be very expensive to whoever has to pay the costs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid that we have to pay them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But only a certain proportion. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that only certain costs can he assessed by a solicitor against the loser of a case; the other party will always have something to pay. Now, this provision insists on the branding of goods which may be branded without injury. Who is to decide what articles may be branded without injury? Some customs official who knows nothing about the material he is handling? Then there is a penalty provided of $1,000 and a year's imprisonment. It is provided also that all goods imported into Canada which do not comply with the requirements made shall be subject to an additional duty of 10 per cent and shall not be released from the customs office until they have been branded. Who is to do the branding? Some official in the Customs Department who knows nothing about the goods he is handling? Mr. Chairman, I would like to see this resolution struck out. If it is adopted we shall have a serious condition to deal with-a more serious condition than prevailed in connection with the Luxury Tax Act and the definition of what is a manufacturer. Now, you ask your customs officials to go into a retail store to examine a line of goods-officials who know very little of the technical qualities of the goods they are inspecting. And who is going to say whether or not the goods should be branded? It is provided that they shall be marked in a conspicuous place. Take the case of stockings; what lady is going to wear a pair of stockings which are branded with an indelible stamp?


An hon. MEMBER:: Skirts may get longer.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, they do not show a tendency in that direction. It is the other way about, so it is hard to say what may happen in that regard. Prior to the war a law was passed in England providing that goods which were not made in Great Britain should be marked "not British manufacture." That created a good deal of hard feeling in Germany. But the British manufacturers decided that in handling goods marked "German manufacture," for instance, they were advertising German manufactures; accordingly, they came to the conclusion that they would avoid that result by having the goods marked 'not British manufacture." If it were provided that the packages or containers of the goods should be marked "British manufacture," "German manufacture" or "Swiss /manufacture," as the case might be, the purpose my hon. friend has in mind would be served, but such a law as is proposed cannot be enforced without a great deal of trouble and a considerable amount of friction. Some one has said that a good deal of deception is practiced by retail merchants by selling goods as of Scotch, English or Irish manufacture which are not made in those countries. Well, I suggest that the public should be allowed to do some deciding on their own account; they should be educated to the point of toeing able to protect themselves against impositions of that kind. I have seen any amount of tweed goods which had been made in Canada sold as Scotch manufacture. It suits the purchaser's fancy to believe that he is buying goods of Scotch manufacture, and he ig getting value for his money just the same. A certain amount of that sort of thing cannot possibly be avoided,-and when clothing made in Canada is sold as Scotch goods, I do not think the purchaser suffers very much as a result. Of course, I want it to be understood distinctly that I do not approve of deception of that kind. Some of the best carpets produced are made in Canada. I would not have to go far from this chamber to find goods in use marked "British manufacture" and "U.S. manufacture" which, if the purchaser knew his business, would be found to be not so good value for the money as goods manufactured in Canadian mills.
Another point is this: .If you insist on this resolution being put into force, you increase the cost of commodities, because all these little additional operations cost money. I do not think we should endeavour to stop the present downward trend of the price of commodities, and every little hampering enactment of this kind will certainly add to the cost of merchandise because it will cost money to brand each individual item in a package. If you brand the package or container, that will be quite sufficient to indicate where the goods come from, and the purpose underlying this resolution will be served by an enactment along this line. I shall be sorry if the minister insists on passing this resolution, because I know he will find that it will cause a great deal of hardship and trouble, particularly as regards merchandise in stock on September 1. 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not interfered with.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Your customs officer, inspector, or spotter who goes around the country will interfere. He has been interfering in other cases. He will go into a store and find one line of articles that have been imported after September 1 and that are branded, and another line of the same goods not branded. What will he do? He will purchase an article that is not branded, take it before a magistrate and lay an information, and the merchant will have to defend a case of that kind. The minister need not shake his head. I have been through the mill, and I know exactly what this means. The retail trade of this country will >be put to a great deal of cost in defending cases of this kind. Officials who have very little knowledge of items in which they are dealing, will put not only the department, but the business of the country to a great deal of trouble that might be saved by leaving conditions as they are.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assure my hon. friend at once that this is something where there is no room for misunderstanding. Last year we did not get the legislation quite as clear as we should have done. I thought it was clear and evidently the courts thought it was clear enough, but the decision was overruled. There is no question of courts here. This is a question of the administration of the customs office pure and simple. You do not send inspectors out of the customs office unless they are asked to go and look after something special. There would certainly be no scrutiny made of private stocks after September 1, for the purpose of finding what had not been marked. The whole idea of this law is that when customs entries are being made and goods are being examined for customs purposes, then and then only shall this question as to the marking be determined. One might just as well say that because you have a customs law as it is now, the customs officer must follow everybody into the different offices, warehouses and so forth for the purpose of worrying and annoying him. As regards trade matters, I have very often the pleasure of agreeing with my hon. friend, but I think he is mistaken as regards a system which allows a Canadian manufacturer, in the case that he quoted, to turn around and sell Canadian-made goods, no matter how good they may be, as 
Scotch goods. I do .it ; think that is a proper system.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not think it is a
good system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are going a long way in stopping that sort of thing by this legislation. Moreover, during the war, the people of this country were badly taken in in matters of this kind. First-rate hats are made in Canada; but during the war, hats were sold as English hats, and the only things that were English on them were the label and the hat band. If we get everything marked properly when it comes in, the proper mark of the firm, the mark can be put on any way they like. They are not going to hurt the smallest things. I yield at once to my hon. friend's experience in ladies' stockings, but I have seen very good ladies' stockings with marks on the toes. I have even seen those sacred things injured to the extent of having the number on them, and I do not believe it would hurt them any more if we put the name of the country on the toe. I do not believe that ladies would object to that in the slightest. As regards what kind of goods should be marked, that is something that will have to be made final, definite and determined in the regulations. There are some goods that ought not to be marked.
Mr. PEDIjOW: j The resolution says that the article must be marked in a conspicuous place and thdt the mark must not be covered up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend suggest that a lady's stocking is, of necessity, conspicuous in the sense that he means? I think my hon. friend is having a little fun at my expense, and that he really understands the object of the resolution; that is, that when a purchase is made by the consumer, the consumer will be able to see somewhere on the article, in a place where it can be read, the name of the country of origin. I do not think my hon. friend would say that, if that were applied to corsets, the name could not be put on a conspicuous place on the corsets. It refers to the garment, not when worn, but when purchased.


James Alexander Robb: Might I suggest to the
minister that during the recess he might gather for the committee such information as would enable us to determine to what extent this prevails in other countries, because this will largely affect international trade? If it is a good

thing for Canada to introduce and enforce such regulations, other countries may determine that it is a good thing for their trade, and this might result in a considerable expense to those throughout our country who do an export business.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be a
move further in the right direction to require that goods manufactured in Canada shall be stamped as being of Canadian manufacture, so that we might stop the fraud of which my hon. friend speaks, of Canadian goods being sold as British goods? If it is good policy to let the people of Canada know that these goods are made abroad, it is equally good policy to let them know the goods that are made at home.
I foresee another difficulty. We have by regulations and the customs tariff dealt with the British preference, that is to say in determining what the country of origin is. For example, German goods are advanced to a stage nearing perfection. They are then sent to Great Britain where they are finished. When they come over here, is Great Britain the country of their origin? In the case of the British perference, there must be a certain percentage of British labour on them to enable them to be recognized as coming under our tariff. I am afraid my hon. friend will meet that same difficulty in determining the country of origin.
At Six o'clock, the committee rose and the House took recess.
After Recess


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 147 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Wilson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 148 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Harding.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 149 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Furneaux.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 150 (from the Senate), for the relief of Matthew John Scott.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 151 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dora Lucy Bell.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 152 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry Kropp.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 153 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Daughton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 154 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Maud Bell.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Henry Foster.-Mr. Rowell.
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edward George Taylor.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Swanston Neville.-Mr. Copp.	,
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Lillie Montgomery.-Mr. Fripp.	v ,
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief'of Ethel Gordon Wright Ball.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ivan Ignatius BrazilL-Mr. Mowat.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

Mr. ETHIER:: Mr. Speaker, with the
consent of the House may I be permitted to move that the Rules of the House be suspended to permit me to move the first reading of a Bill which, I understand, was reported from the Senate this afternoon?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would have no objection to putting the question to the House as to whether unanimous consent should be given, but we must have at least the name of the Bill.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: It is a Bill respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will put the motion
after we have received the report from the committee.
ALPHONSE LeMOYNE de MARTIGNY
House in committee on Bill No. 120 (from the Senate) for the relief of Alphonse LeMoynt de Martigny, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-marriage dissolved:


Mr. STEIN:: I move that consideration of this clause and of the Bill be postponed until the next sitting of the House. There was some opposition to this Bill in the Private Bills Committee, and with some other hon. members I should like to have the opportunity of reading the evidence, which we have not been able to do as yet. on account of the late sittings recently.


Mr. FRIPP:: I do not think we should interfere with the judgment of the Privafe Bills Committee in this case. This Bill was considered with a great deal of care by

the Private Bills Committee, and there was evidence-


Georges Henri Boivin: I must call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Fripp) to the fact that we have not entered into a discussion of the Bill or of the clause. The motion is simply that consideration be postponed. That, of course, is an undebatable motion, and unless it can be agreed to by unanimous consent, I shall be obliged to put the motion to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. .
Progress reported.

Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I move that rules 28 (a) and 115 be suspended and that Bill No. 188, respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada, be read the first time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out that this motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read the second time?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I should like to have it read the second time now.	%


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In this instance, also, the motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Private Bills having
been exhausted, the House will resume Committee of Ways and Means.



PRIVILEGE-RIGHT HON. MR MEIGHEN

Arthur Meighen: I would ask the unanimous
consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, to return to Orders of the Day. I desire to make a few remarks on a question of privilege.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the House gives unanimous consent to return to Orders of the Day at this stage, it will be necessary to resume in Committee of Ways and Means, when progress could be reported and the Prime Minister then move that

the House return to Orders of the Day. Has the right hon. member the unanimous consent of the House to return to Orders of the Day?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: I feel impelled again to refer to a matter that was introduced into this House by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in the course of his speech in the Budget debate on Thursday last. In that speech he made a statement in reference to a subject which I freely say he should not have felt at liberty to discuss in the House. He said that an offer had been made by me, or by some one representing me, of a position in this Government to Hon. Mr. Veniot, the Minister of Public Works in the province of New Brunswick. At the time I gave a categorical denial to the assertion, and added that no one, on my authority, had made any such proposal. The subject was brought up again, at yesterday's sitting of the House, some time this morning by the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy.)


Mr. DUFF:: Centre Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: It was brought up by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), in relation to certain changes which he stated had been made in the report in Hansard.
It was referred to by the hon. member for Russell, however, proceeding along the line of the hon. member for Marquette, and an interview, or an alleged interview, said to have been given by the hon. Mr. Veniot, in his own province, was read. In the interview it was alleged-I am not saying now that the allegation was made by the hon. member for Russell; I do not know of my own knowledge whether the interview was ever given or not that this gentleman had been approached on behalf of myself, and indeed went on to say that some letter had been written to him by me and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it appeared in Hansard transcript, although I see in the paper-


Mr. VIEN:: Hansard was corrected.


Arthur Meighen: -Mr. Veniot said it had been written to somebody else by me. This was intended to confirm the allegation that this proposal had been made. During all this I knew from memory, although

my correspondence is very heavy, that I had received some letter some time on the subject, hut as no one was good enough to give me the name of the correspondent I was not able to trace it. My secretary tried to do so yesterday but without success. This forenoon he has succeeded in securing two letters written me by a gentleman in the city of St. John. I am sorry to have to give so much time and attention to this subject. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, it is not worth it, but those responsible are well known.
I am sorry also that letters of this character that were not intended by the writer to be made public are under the necessity of being made public because of the very unusual-and I hope not to be repeated- action taken by certain hon. members. I therefore propose to lay on the Table the actual correspondence that passed between us, and I commend it to the consideration of the hon. members who have not only been the means of circulating through this country an impression wholly false-I had almost said cruelly false-but an impression that has been taken advantage of by one or two unprincipled newspapers to pursue tactics peculiar to themselves. The first letter is dated November 29-1 am not sure that I personally read it wholly through when I got it. I may say before I proceed any further that what I hold in my hand is all the correspondence that passed between me and anybody on the subject; nor did I speak to any human being, Cabinet minister, or other, on the subject. All I had to do with it is as represented by the correspondence I now read:
Saint John, N.B., November 29, 1920. Honourable Arthur Meighbn,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Premier,-
I have just read the article "Trying to Rope Him In'' by "The Mace" in this week's Toronto Saturday Night, and naturally it makes one think of "How to do it".
Not having had the pleasure of meeting you I am an entire stranger, but we have some" mutual friends and to one, W. F. O'Connor, Ottawa, I will refer you as to my good faith in any proposition I may make.
Everybody knows how big the job is "To rope him in" and nearly all look at it from the same view point. My idea is to get at it from a different angle. Let me explain briefly: At the time of forming Union Government, I wrote Sir Robert L. Borden and suggested that, as he could not get support in Quebec, it would be good policy to take in the Honourable Peter J. Veniot who had two or three sons overseas, who could easily be returned for Gloucester, N.B., and who is well and favourably known throughout Eastern Quebec, but Sir Robert did not act on the suggestion although he wrote me In favour of it.
I may say that he was not in favour of it. I have the letter that was written.
You want and must get French support and Cabinet material. Why not take Mr. Veniot as representative of the Acadians among whom all over the Maritime Provinces he is recognised as leader. He would quickly increase his following from Quebec where he is active in many French organizations etc., and if desired at general election he could easily stand for and carry a Quebec riding. It would strengthen you with the French speaking people and be a powerful factor in breaking the solid front against you and the means of changing opponents to supporters.
In the words of the article referred to "You need a Tarte". Well Mr. Veniot is next thing to a Tarte, a trained parliamentarian, good debater, fluent speaker in both English and French, clever political organizer, stands well with his Church authorities and both French and English speaking people, knows the political game and so far has made good as Minister of Public Works for New Brunswick.
If you looked upon the suggestion with favour the question would be "Could you get him?" I have not spoken to Mr. Veniot about it nor to any other person in his behalf and he has not the faintest idea that I am writing you or had written Sir Robert Borden.
One way to win is to think of schemes others overlook and act upon them and this is such a case and I believe it can be put through.
Of course Mr. Veniot would have a portfolio in Cabinet. To make an opening for him Mr. Turgeon would have to be provided for and Mr. Veniot for the time being, at least, represent Gloucester. Probably Mr. Veniot would look upon the change to get to Ottawa with favour in view of the Farmers gain made in the last Provincial election in the English districts looked after by other ministers. He put the Foster Government into power and if he withdrew it ^ would quickly go out which would mean a coalition between Conservatives and Farmers with Baxter for Premier and such would be a great factor towards your success later.	!
Almost the entire gain in population in the Maritime Provinces is among the Acadians. There are two Acadian Bishops in New Brunswick and giving Acadians recognition in Federal Cabinet would be simple justice in ^ proportion to populations, and create favorable impressions all over the Maritime provinces.
If I could be of any service in this matter let me know. I thought possibly if we found Mr. Veniot favourable it might be arranged for him to board your train at some quiet station and discuss the matter with you en route to or from Sydney, C.B., as I see you are going there.
Yours truly,
The signature is here. I would like hon. members to state further whether they desire to have it; if necessary we can discuss that. I do not know the gentleman; I never heard of him.


William Duff: It does not make any difference.	'


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. members of finer feeling will see that it might be better that his name should not he given. I am sorry to have had to read the letter. Now I will read my reply.


Mr. COPP:: You might give his initials.


Arthur Meighen: If I am asked by the leader of the Opposition to give the name I will give it. My reply is dated December 1, and is very brief.
Ottawa, Ont., Deoember 1, 1920.
I have just received your letter of the 29th November. I will discuss the subject to which you call attention with Mr. Wig-more. I have had no intimation whatever from the party to whom you refer as <to his attitude towards the Government or toward the paramount Federal issues of the day.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.) Arthur Meighen.
I received, I see, a further letter dated January 7, from the same gentleman which reads as follows:
St. John, N.B., January 7, 1921. Honourable Arthur Meighen,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Meighen :-
After receipt of your letter and a letter from Mr. Wigmore, I awaited Mr. Wigmore's visit which was delayed and unfortunately missed seeing him, although I endeavoured to do so.
As you and Mr. Wigmore may not be in Ottawa at the same time I enclose oopy of the letter I am sending Mr. Wigmore which explains itself.
The interviews referred to therein did not lessen my faith in the suggestion but rather confirmed it.
If I can be of any service in this or any other matter to assist you kindly advise.
Yours truly,
To which I replied as follows on January 10:
Ottawa, Ont., January 10, 1921.
On my return to the city I find your letter of the 7th January, together with copy of one addressed to Mr. Wigmore, Minister of Customs, with whom I will be glad to discuss the matter referred to, at the first favourable opportunity.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Arthur Meighen.
I may say that through pressure of work or otherwise I have never yet even spoken to the Minister of Customs on the subject.
I should read now the letter to the Minister of Customs, a copy of which was enclosed to me in the above letter of January 7.
It is dated January 7, 1921, and is as follows:
Dear Mr. Wigmore
I am sorry you were unable to see me during your visit to Saint John as per your letter of December 3. I called at your office four or five times each day and the third day left a letter offering to meet you at any time or place that would suit you best, and repeatedly phoned and left my number both at the office and Mr. Terry's.

I know how rushed you were and merely mention above to show I did my best to see you without breaking my other business engagements.
I was in Bathurst two weeks since I got your letter and had three interviews with the party about whom I had written the Premier, and while I was not in a position to say anything definite, I promised to see him after your visit and now not having seen you puts me in an awkward position.
I might say in a general way my friend is quite an admirer of the Premier whom he met once in Ottawa, and believes in his sincerity to give the Dominion good honest administration and admits need of tariff and other methods of taxation to raise revenue to carry on affairs of this great country. He did not turn the proposition down, felt details as I suggested to make opening, could easily be arranged, but until I had something more definite he did not wish to say more than that he would be glad to see me after my interview with you.
As, expecting to see you, I delayed acknowledging the Premier's letter. I am doing so to-day and enclosing him carbon o-f this letter so he will know how the matter stands if you and he do not be in Ottawa at the same time.
.	Yours truly,
I have already read the letter in which he enclosed this copy.


Mr. McMASTER:: You have not read the letter of Mr. Wigmore to this gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: No, I want to keep distinct the correspondence with myself; then I will read that letter.
This is the entire correspondence with me. There has been nothing beyond the correspondence, not a word-not even a sight of the gentleman, not even a word to my colleague or to any other members of the Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did I understand the right hon. gentleman to say that the man's name was signed to this letter?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it signed on the copy?


Arthur Meighen: I will lay it on the Table with the signature to it when asked by the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am simply asking if this copy is signed.


Arthur Meighen: I think the signature was copied on the typewriter, but the original letter was signed. On receipt of the letters, in the usual way I had my secretary refer them to the appropriate minister, and he put on the face of the correspondence:
Hon. R. W. Wigmore.
Referred by the Prime Minister for consideration.
George F. Buskard,
Private Secretary.

Mr. Wigniore then writes:
The Prima Minister has referred to me your letter in reference to P. J. Veniot and X have carefully noted what you say. I expect to he in St. John between Christmas and New Tears and will be very glad to discuss the matter personally with you then.
Which discussion did not take place.


Thomas Vien: When yesterday the Prime Minister denied these letters he quoted the speech of the member for Russell in this way:
The person who made the overtures to me presented to me a letter addressed to me and signed Premier Meighen.
I find the quotation in the unrevised Hansard reads:
The person who made the overtures to me presented to me a letter addressed to him and signed by Premier Meighen.
The Prime Minister when reading the quotation said: "addressed to me." That was not quite what the hon. member for Russell had quoted.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will recall that the hon. member for Russell declined to read the interview in my hearing when I came into the House. I therefore sent to the Hansard office for the transcript; I received it, and it read exactly as I read in the House. I have the transcript in my hand at this moment. I presume there is an error.


Thomas Vien: It does not read that way
in the unrevised Hansard this morning.


Arthur Meighen: I hold in my hand the transcript handed to me by the Hansard office. That possibly may be clear as well. Let me say finally, that what I stated was this, that no such proposal had been made by me, or upon my authority, directly or indirectly, definitely or indefinitely, or in any other way. I appeal to my colleagues of this House whether what I said was right.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I notice in reading the
Journal newspaper report that there was mention of a letter sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Veniot on January 11. Is there such a letter in the hands of the Prime Minister?


Arthur Meighen: There was no such
letter received. I never wrote him, and he never wrote me-at least, none was received.
Cfn motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen the House returned to the Order: Private Bills.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering the first resolution, which will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, May 9, 1921. It is a resolutioh to amend the Customs tariff, 1907. The three first resolutions had been passed and we were con-' sidering resolution No. 4, which had been read and discussed. Shall resolution No. 4 carry?


James Alexander Robb: The hon. Minister of Finance was to obtain some information for the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, wanted information as to provisions in other countries dealing with the same subject. The provision adopted by the American Congress is very much in point. It is to be found in the Tariff Act of the United States, more popularly known as the Underwood Tariff of 1913. My recollection is that it was not even then a new provision, but an old provision somewhat amplified and brought down to date. At page 91 the section reads:
That all articles of foreign manufacture or production, which are capable of being marked, stamped, branded, or labelled, without injury, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labelled in legible English words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. The said marking, stamping, branding, or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature

So that our resolution reads practically the same. But there is one provision which we have not inserted. The American law
goes on to provide:
All packages containing imported articles shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labelled so as to indicate legibly and plainly, in English words, the country of origin and the quantity of their contents, and until marked in accordance with the directions prescribed in this section no articles or packages shall be delivered to the importer.
We have not included the last provision; we thought that possibly it was not necessary. I quote further:
Should any article or package of imported merchandise be marked, stamped, branded or labeled so as not acurately to indicate the quantity, number, or measurement actually contained in such article or package, no delivery of the same shall be made to the importer until the mark, stamp, brand, or label, as the case may be, shall be changed so as to conform to

the facts of the case. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the foregoing provision.
The penal clause in the United States law is as follows:
If any person shall fraudulently violate any of the provisions of this Act relating to the marking, stamping, branding, or labeling of any imported articles or packages; or shall fraudulently deface, destroy, remove, alter, or obliterate any such marks, stamps, brands, or labels with intent to conceal the information given by or contained in such marks, stamps, brands, or labels, he shall upon conviction be fined in any sum not exceeding ?5,000-
That is, against the $1,000 mentioned in our resolution.
-or be imprisoned for any time not exceeding one year, or both.
Mr. PEDL.OW:	Before the committee
rose at six o'clock I had expressed my opposition to this proposal. I have since considered the matter in more detail and I do not see why I should change my view in that regard. The fact that the United States or any other country has a provision of this kind is no reason why the Canadian Government should adopt a similar measure. If the minister can show any real necessity for this provision I might, perhaps, withdraw my opposition to it. Now, I have had some experience in matters of this kind and my opinion on this question should have some weight. As I said before six o'clock, in my judgment this measure if adopted will be absolutely impossible of enforcement; it is impracticable, and it is unnecessary. The minister apparently desires to protect the public against unscrupulous dealers. But let me say to the committee, and, through the press, if necessary, to the country, that In an experience of over forty-five years I have never known a merchant who practiced deceptive measures to be successful in business, or to remain before the public for any considerable length of time. I say that the public have the power in their own hands to deal with matters of this kind and that they do deal with them successfully. I know a town not far from Ottawa in which thirty years ago there were forty-five merchants doing business; to-day only one of the original number remains in active business. I admit that there are some merchants who attempt to deceive the public by selling, perhaps, Canadian made goods as goods of English, Scotch, Irish or German manufacture, but such merchants as I have indicated succeed only for a short time; they are deait with by the

public in very short order. Those who attempt to deceive the public live, move and have their being in business but for a brief space of time; they have not won the confidence of the public; they vanish and are soon seen no more.
Now, I had thought that we were through with restrictive measures of this kind, at least for some time. The hon. member for Durham, the former President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), worked this class of legislation over time during the last three sessions. I understand that the hon. gentleman has decided to withdraw from the House. At any rate, he it was who had placed on the statute book an enactment regarding maple products which is so restrictive in its character that we have before the House this session a Bill, the purpose of which is to change or modify those restrictions.


James Alexander Robb: But it will not carry.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That remains to be
seen. It will have to be discussed on the floor of the House, and the fact that the member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon says so does not mean that it will not carry.


James Alexander Robb: I would point out to my hon. friend that the Bill was referred,to the Committee on Agriculture and did not find one single supporter-it was thrown out.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That does not alter my statement that, as I understand it, the Bill came before the House. I still maintain that because the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon says so, it does not follow that the House will support what he says. Another measure was introduced by the member for Durham providing that honey produced by bees fed on sugar should be regarded as adulterated honey. Evidently he would not allow even the bees to practice deception. I had hoped that this class of legislation was a thing of the past and that the genial Minister of Finance would not follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for Durham in this respect. Now, this resolution reads:
THiat all goods imported into Canada which are capable of being marked stamped, branded or labelled, without injury, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labelled so as to indicate the country of origin. ... in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements.
If we insist on that, the business people of this country will be engaged in advertising the merchandise of other countries by distributing their advertising. The

British Government saw the foolishness of that procedure, and instead of insisting that the goods be 'branded with the name of country of origin, they insisted that they be branded " not British manufacture". In that way they avoided advertising German goods, Swiss goods, French goods and goods of other countries. That would be a much better proposition if we must have some propositions of this kind. In that way, instead of advertising foreign goods throughout the country, we advertise the fact that they are " not Canadian made goods." Thus, no matter where the goods originate, if the public are satisfied to purchase them at the price named, they have nothing to complain of. -
In connection with this resolution, there are other provisions that I take exeception to. The resolution which the minister has just read as being in force in the United States contains a very necessary qualifying word in one of its sections. The penalty clause reads:
Provided further that if any person shall violate any of the provisions relating to the marking, stamping, branding, or labelling of any imported goods, or shall deface, destroy, remove, alter-
And so on. The American Act, as I Allowed the minister in reading it, states: Shall fraudulently deface.
The word "fraudulently" is a very important word in that connection. If marking on the goods was defaced accidentally of by the process of lying in stock or otherwise, the merchant might be subject to the penalty; but if the word " fraudulently " were inserted in the second line of this paragraph of the resolution before the word " deface", the meaning of the offence would be qualified, and the Government, if they took action against a merchant, would have to prove fraud. Thus it would be more difficult to secure a conviction.
The resolution states that these goods must be branded in a conspicuous place. Before six o'clock, I called attention to some items of merchandise that certainly would be destroyed and made of less value than their real worth if they were 9 p.m. branded in a conspicuous place. I called attention to the item of hosiery. The minister thought that I was having some fun at his expense in doing so, but I was really sincere. The resolution states that these articles must be branded in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements. A lady buys a pair of stockings. She is not supposed, according to this resolution,
to cover them up, at all events, where the brand is to be. Her skirts will have to be shorter than they are to-day. I insist that this is going a little too far in a matter of this kind. I should like to know from the minister, who suggested this provision. I know it is in the American Act, but I would advise him not to have any " truck or trade with the Yankees " in matters of this kind. It is dangerous to follow such a provision.
Even though. the word "fraudulent" be inserted as suggested, and even though the penalty is less than it is in the provisions of the United States' Act, this is still a very severe penalty. In this country there are, connected with the Customs and Inland Revenue Department, a large number of officials who, I consider,, are in some instances not a very desirable class of .individuals. These men are detectives sent out by the Government, and they are paid on a basis that makes their service really immoral. They are paid a percentage of the fines obtained, and that makes these officials stoop to unworthy methods to obtain convictions in cases where they wish to make some money. If the minister still insists that this resolution pass, and that it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the public that it should pass, he should modify this penalty clause. A nominal fine would be quite sufficient.
There is a provision whereby goods received at the customs after September 1, when this clause comes into operation, if they are not branded according to the prescribed form of the Customs Department, the importer will in the first place be subject to a penalty of 10 per cent additional customs duty, and the goods will be retained until such time as they have been branded. What provision does the minister intend to make for branding these goods? Who will have authority to say just where these several items should be branded, because that is a very important matter? I question whether there is in the customs service to-day a man capable of saying where the conspicuous point would be for branding an article so that the brand would not destroy the selling qualities of the merchandise.
I feel seriously in regard to this proposition, and I would suggest to the minister to delay further consideration of this matter until he has consulted the business interests of this country in regard to it, if he has not done so already. The mere fact that the United States Government have had an Act of this kind in force since 1913

should not influence us to the extent that we should ignore the opinion of our own people. If the minister would follow my advice, he would be saved in years to come a great deal of trouble in such as he came through in the past year in connection with the luxury tax and the provisions of the Single Tax Act. The provisions which I have referred to already, are those governing the definition of "mahufacture." That caused a great deal of trouble; it was under discussion from the time the Bill was introduced last May until yesterday. The decision of the courts was handed down only yesterday, so that all the trade affected by that enactment of last year was in a state of turmoil and unrest during the entire year. I would, therefore, suggest that the minister allow this resolution to stand over for further consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend has not quite grasped the real underlying purpose of this resolution. It is certainly not intended to bother purchasers of goods one way or another, and it will not and cannot. It is intended to put the Canadian people in the position of knowing what goods they are buying, and it is something which is asked for by a large section of the people. Rightly or wrongly, we have in Canada-and I think it is a very good thing that we have it-a large percentage of our people who are genuinely interested in trying to advance British trade. They want to know when they are buying a British made article. I do not know of anything which will help British trade more than the present proposal, and without cost to the Canadian public-and not only without cost to the Canadian public, but to their advantage, for they will know what they are getting. I would point out to my hon. friend that this provision applies only to goods which can be marked without injury. There is no idea in anyone's mind of putting stencil marks on expensive lace, for example, or anything of that kind. That has never been attempted anywhere. Nothing will be marked except what can be marked without injury.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Who will decide what class of merchandise can be marked without injury?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole of that will be definitely decided in printed regulations to be drawn up, and in drawing up those regulations I hope that we shall be able to get the benefit of my hon. friend's business experience, because I am

sure he would be able to help us. The provision as to not covering the marks is one that applies only to the person who is handling the goods. It is not for the purpose of the customs that these marks have to be put on, for the customs can easily satisfy themselves where the goods are coming from. Take, for example, the simple illustration which I have already given. It has been often alleged that German knives are being sold as English knives. Now the whole idea in having the knives marked " Made in England " in the one case, and " Made in Germany " in the other, is to ensure that the Canadian purchaser of that cutlery will know what kind of cutlery he is getting. If it is marked " Sheffield "-and Sheffield cutlery has a great reputation-he will know that he is getting Sheffield cutlery. I am told that some German -goods today have " Sheffield " marked on them. What we are endeavouring to ensure is that the Canadian purchaser will know what he is buying, and that is all, so far as any question of covering up the mark is concerned. You have a knife brought in, we will suppose. It is marked all right, but suppose that a dealer in knives in Canada says:	" The market for the English
knife is much 'better than for the continental knife. A little bit of acid will take those words out, and I can easily put in the words " Made in England". Now that would be a serious offence, and it is that sort of thing that we are trying to stop. This has nothing whatever to do with what happens to the article after it has been purchased by the final consumer.


William Stevens Fielding: So far as the object of the hon. gentleman is to prevent fraud and deception, we all must sympathize with him, but it seems to me that he needs to go a little further. He has said that there are a great many people in Canada who want to buy British goods. That is very commendable, but there are also a great many people in Canada, and I am willing to be counted as one of them, who want to buy Canadian made goods. Now if it is important that a man should know whether he is buying British made goods, it is equally important that he should know whether he is buying Canadian made goods, and it seems to me that to carry out the intention of my hon. friend he should require that Canadian goods should be marked "Made in Canada". I do not think there is any escape from that. If the marking system is useful at all, it ought

to work both ways, and it seems to me that to have the goods marked "Made in Canada" would be a protection of a legitimate kind to the Canadian manufacturer. My hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low) has said that within his knowledge people have sold Canadian goods and represented them to be British. That is equally fraudulent. There is a great "Made in Canada" movement in this country to-day in favour of buying Canadian made goods. If we want to encourage that movement, we want to make sure that we are getting Canadian made goods, and it seems to me there is just as much reason for insisting on the goods being marked "Made in Canada" as there is for imported goods to be marked, as is provided here. The object is the same in both cases-to see that we get what is represented. Why should we be open to deception in the case of Canadian made goods, and protected against the invasion only of British goods is not very plain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This could
hardly be called a protection against the invasion of British goods. This is something that the British Importers' Association have asked for. It is something which they say is in the interests of their fair and legitimate trade in this market. It is something which they have been very anxious to have provided. So far as Canadian made goods are concerned, if Hhis law carries, and there is no mark on the article, it is Canadian.


William Stevens Fielding: That does not follow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not? If this law is passed, and if it is observed, every article imported into the country will have the name of the country of origin upon it, and the only articles left will be Canadian made articles. I would think it would be a good thing for Canadian manufacturers to mark on their products that they were made in Canada. I know that in connection with butter and cheese our sales at one time were greatly increased just by reason of the fact that we were calling these products Canadian. Canadian bacon also had a wonderful standing in England; it was a great thing to be able to label your stuff "Canadian bacon". I think the hon. gentleman will agree, however, that in a Customs Act we cannot deal with the question of marking our local goods.


James Alexander Robb: I think it would cover the suggestion of my hon. friend from Renfrew and my hon. friend from Shelburne
and Queen's if the section were amended to read "all goods imported into or manufactured in Canada".


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the hon. gentleman quite caught the point I made. How is it possible in a Customs Act properly to deal with the marking of Canadian goods?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister does not seem to have caught the point I made. It is this: The British Government have already enacted legislation providing, not that the goods shall be marked with the country of origin, but the very reverse, and I know that the object of that legislation was to prevent the advertising in ' Great Britain of goods, wares and merchandise that are the manufacture of foreign countries. Their legislation provides that importations from foreign countries, instead of being marked with the name of the country of origin, shall be marked "Not British manufacture," and that British products shall be marked "British manufacture." I submit that that would be an improvement on the present proposal. I appreciate the minister's effort to encourage the demand for Canadian made goods. He has been preaching that all over the country, in Montreal, Toronto, and other places, but I would call the attention of the House to the fact that at least some of the departments of the Government are not supporting the minister in that regard. For instance, I take up a pen and find that it is marked "Made in the United States"; I take up a packages of pins upstairs, and instead of finding the inscription British or Canadian, I see that the package also bears the label "Made in the United States"; and the same with this pencil I have in my hand; it also was made in the United States. These articles are all furnished by the Government to members of the House. I think that business, like charity, should begin at home, and when the Government is preaching certain principles, they should see to it that their employees are first to live up to those principles. I notice the Purchasing Commission is buying, for this magnificent new building, rugs made in the United States, England and elsewhere, notwithstanding that better rugs can be purchased here for less money which are made right here in Canada. If the minister really desires to have the people buy "Made in Canada" goods, he must-to protect the interests of the Canadian manufacturer, as well as, according to the Government, the tax payer-set the example himself and insist

that the various departments of the Gov-vernment, as well as the Purchasing Commission, shall carry out those ideas which they instil into the public. The minister should allow this resolution to stand. I am sure that if he waits until he hears from the mercantile interests of the country he will amend it considerably. I am satisfied that as it stands it will serve no good purpose, and will only entail an enormous amount of trouble. The minister has had enough trouble during the past year with regard to another measure-against which I protested at the time it was enacted.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: I think that, on general principles, an arrangement of this kind is bad. Of course, I despair of the Committee being in agreement with me on that subject. I object to interference with trade, and an interference of this small and petty order is particularly objectionable. I do not urge that point, however; but I am very much impressed with what has fallen from my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). The minister tells us that his action has been supported by the British exporters. Well, while I am not a protectionist, I believe in fair play to the Canadian manufacturer, and I am not at all sure that it is quite fair to our own manufacturers to give a voluntary advertisement of this kind to goods produced even in Britain. Why should we give a special advertisement to British goods by Act of this House? It surely amounts to that. There is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's indicated on that point. The minister replies that it would be difficult to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member. Indeed, it would be impossible by the Customs Act; it would require other legislation to compel the labelling of Canadian goods "Made in Canada". But that does not remove the objection to any special advertisement being given to British made goods as against Canadian products. If there were a real desire to promote commerce with Britain, of course, my hon. friend knows that I could give him a recipe along that line much more valuable to the Canadian and the British consumers than the mere marking of goods coming from Britain. If he would lower the bars a little, that would be a fair field and no favour; but a special advertisement for British goods seems to me to be a discrimination against the Canadian manufacturers that cannot very well be defended on grounds of logic.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Canadian manufacturers are not a bit alarmed at the British marking their goods British made. The Canadian manufacturers are perfectly willing to compete with British made goods, and there are few people in Canada who do not mark their goods "Made in Canada", or who do not indicate the town in which they are made.


Michael Clark: The hon. member takes a large order when he speaks for all the manufacturers of Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know of any manufacturers who are afraid of competition with British, or German, or any other goods.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will the minister not amend the resolution in conformity with the American resolution, by adding the word "fraudulently" before the word "deface" in the third last line? I move that the further consideration of this resolution be postponed.
Motion negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
5. Resolved, that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The object of this fifth resolution is to prevent the previous resolution immediately coming into force, so as to give every one an ample opportunity of conforming to the law without any trouble. I may point out that there is not likely to be much trouble, because most countries that are exporting into Canada also, to some extent, export into the United States. This gives to September 1 next to comply with the previous resolution.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I submit that the time given is not sufficient. Contracts are placed with European and British manufacturers sometimes seventeen and eighteen months ahead, and it is utterly impossible for them to be varied now. I suggest that the time be extended to at least six months from the present date. Great hardship to importers of merchandise into this country would be created if the resolution as it now stands became law.	,


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a matter of fact, one month would be ample. The American market is very largely similar to our own so far as the character of consumption is concerned. In order that there may not be the slightest possible difficulty, however, I have no objection to making

it October 1 instead of September 1. I therefore move to amend the resolution accordingly.
Resolution as amended agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before I report this resolution, I miay state that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine) has requested me to obtain the unanimous consent of the committee for him to ask a question concerning resolution No. 2 which was passed during his absence this afternoon. There was a question of returning to and reopening the clause for discussion, and this, of course, would also require unanimous consent. The ends desired, I think, would be better met by unanimous consent being given that the hon. gentleman have leave to ask the question.


Mr. FONTAINE (Hull):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, if I make that request, it is because I have received to-day many protests from druggists claiming that they have to pay high duties on alcohol, while manufacturers of pharmaceutical products are not obliged to pay that tax. Will the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) be kind enough to let me know if it is a fact that the manufacturers of the pharmaceutical products have not to pay $10 per gallon for alcohol, while druggists, who prepare themselves many prescriptions of which alcohol is a part, are forced to pay that tax?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The tax that the hon. gentleman has referred to-to the extent that I have been able to follow him -is the excise duty that druggists have to pay and which is covered by the resolutions we have not yet considered. We have been considering, the hon. gentleman will see, the customs regulations. We come down in the next resolution to the excise duties and bonding privileges, at which time the consideration the hon. gentleman desires to have given to that question can be given.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: (.Translation.) I am willing to wait, as has been asked by the hon. minister. I understand, however, that druggists are dissatisfied, for they have to pay a very high tax on alcohol which they need for their pharmaceutical products, while the manufacturers can obtain alcohol free of that duty. If that be the case the druggist, who prepares all the elixirs which are included in the medicines, would be greatly discriminated against. Then Mr. Chairman, druggists sell their
products to consumers. Such people call at the drug stores for the prescriptions which they need, and if the druggist is obliged to pay such a high duty he must necessarily sell his product at a high price. It would certainly be a grave injustice and it would show that what has been said yesterday during the debate on the Budget by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the Government seems to be on good terms with the big interests is absolutely true, as about thirty manufacturers at the most would be protected and could secure the alcohol for their medicines in paying a comfortably low tax, while three or four thousand druggists could not get the same favour from the Government, being obliged to pay that duty, which would force them tc charge a higher price for their medicines.
That seems to me to be a very serious situation, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that the buying of remedies is a daily need. It would be a crying injustice, if I am inclined to believe that the hon. Minister of Finance will do justice to whom it concerns. Once more I say that I am willing to wait for the proper moment in order to better discuss that resolution, but I want to state right now to the hon. minister that I will not allow without raising my voice that privileges be granted to thirty trusts or so while three or four thousand druggists will have to suffer from that situation and be obliged to sell their products to the consumers at a much higher price than they should.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend is not right in thinking there is any distinction made in the resolutions Nve have been considering, and which are customs resolutions, between the retail druggist that he speaks of and the patent medicine manufacturer; the tax of $10 is the same on all imported alcohol. The supplies of alcohol for the patent medicine manufacturer are dealt with under the resolution which immediately succeeds the present resolution. It is not touched at all by what the House has done.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall I report the
resolutions?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions read a second time and concurred in. Thereupon Sir Henry Drayton moved to introduce Bill No. 199 to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House went into Committee of Ways and Means on the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
1. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act as amended by Chapter 6 of the Acts of 1914 (second session) by repealing section 154 thereof and substituting therefor the following:-
154. There shall be imposed, levied and collected on all spirits distilled, the following duties of excise, which shall be paid to the Colector,, as herein provided, that is to say:-
(a)	when the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than ninety per centum, by weight of raw or unmalted grain, or when manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses or other saccharine matter not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
Ob) when manufactued exclusively from malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or excise has been paid, or when manufactured from raw or unma ted grain, used in combination, in such proportions as the department prescribes, with malted barley taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or of excise has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars and two cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(c) when manufactured exclusively from molasses, syrup, sugar or other saccharine matter, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs has been paid on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars and three cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Provided however that any person licensed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to manufacture patent and proprietary medicines and pharmaceutical preparations by the use of spirits in bond subject to The Inland Revenue Act and regulations thereunder, the following duties of excise shall be imposed, levied and coleeted, that is to say:-
(a)	when the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than ninety per centum, by weight, of raw or unmalted grain, or when ' manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses or other saccharine matter not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(b)	when manufactured exclusively from malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or excise has been paid, or when manufactured from raw or unmalted grain, used in combination, in such proportions as the department prescribes, with malted barley taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or of excise has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty-two efrnts, and so in proportion for any
[The Chairman. ]
greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon;	.
(c)	when manufactured exclusively from molasses, syrup, sugar or other saccharine matter, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty-three cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Provided further that when such spirits testing not less than fifty per centum over proof are sold delivered in such limited quantities as may be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to any university or scientific and research laboratory for scientific purposes only, or to any bona fide hospital, certified to be such by the Department of Public Health, for medicinal purposes only, a drawback of ninety-nine per centum of the duty paid may be granted, under regulations to be made by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
2. Resolved, That any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that is very technical in the wording of the resolution, hut it follows the regular form of keeping the duties properly in line. Shortly, what is done is this. The excise duty is raised to $9 a gallon-


William Stevens Fielding: From what?


Henry Lumley Drayton: From $4.40. It may he compared to the raise in customs from $5 to $10. Two exceptions are made, and I can assure the committee that they were not made because we would not have liked to get the revenue. They were made because it was felt that a good deal of hardship had resulted from the higher tax level, even having regard to the rate of $4.40 of last year. Hospitals, of necessity, use for medicinal purposes a great deal of alcohol, and it was not a particular complaint here or there, but generally hospitals represented that they were having great difficulty in making both ends meet, and that this new tax aggravated the difficulty. We propose in the present resolution to help the hospitals materially. Under the old law they paid, on a basis of $2.40 a gallon, and last year they paid as I have stated, on the basis of $4.40 a gallon. Our proposition now is in view of their difficulties in properly carrying on, and recognizing the great value of their work, to give them a refund of 99 per cent of all duty paid on spirits which are used by them for medicinal purposes.
Another matter in connection with which we have had a lot of complaint is as to the added cost of all pharmaceutical compounds and preparations in the manu-

facture of which alcohol plays a part. Not only did it apply to patent medicines as we generally understand them, but also to the regular standard pharmaceutical preparations of usual acceptance and use by physicians. We propose to provide that, under the regular policing which has to take place whenever special privileges are granted in connection with liquor taxation, the tax will be reduced to the old standard of $2.40 a gallon. The result will be that, so far as our taxation is concerned, these preparations and patent medicines return to the former level of cost.
There is also another matter which has arisen with insistence since the resolution was printed. It appears that essences and extracts are not entirely manufactured by pharmaceutical chemists, but by manufacturers who are not at the same time manufacturing any pharmaceutical goods. So in order to put them on a parity with manufacturing chemists, I beg to move that the resolution be amended by adding to the second paragraph of subsection (c) after the word "medicines " on the third line the words " extracts, essences."


William Stevens Fielding: Representations have been made that the operation of these changes is very much to the disadvantage of the druggists, as the resolution which the hon. gentleman has proposed would apply, to the larger operators, but would not affect transactions of the ordinary druggist who uses alcohol in the making of many preparations. Do I understand from my hon. friend that the druggists get the full advantage of this:	that they
are not penalized as they think they are?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a matter for the druggist whether or not he accepts the provision enabling him to carry on the manufacture. Of course, the taking advantage of the provision involves expense. An Ottawa druggist came to me and asked me about it the other day and I pointed out to him that he could get the full advantages given to larger manufacturing chemists if he was willing to go to the expense. He said that it would not pay him; that he could buy practically all these things ready prepared by manufacturing chemists, and do so more cheaply than he could make them himself. But if any chemist desires to bond his premises for the purpose, it is open to him to do so. I am afraid though, that it would not pay him.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any change in the present regulations.
236J


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so, for this reason: under the former regulations all manufacturing chemists had to pay the full rate. Very strong representations were made last year by manufacturing chemists that they could not possibly carry on business at these high rates; that the price of proprietary and patent medicines, which they described as the poor man's medicine, would have to be tremendously increased. Under those conditions all were in the same position; the man who wanted to use only a dram of alcohol was in exactly the same position as the man who had to use gallons in large manufacturing operations. Obviously, if you are going to make a specially low rate for these patent and proprietary medicines, hospital requirements, and so on, they must come in under the bonding privilege and a man must be kept on the premises for police purposes.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not complaining of anything that my hon. friend is doing for the large manufacturing concerns; still less am I complaining of the concession he is making to hospitals. But if the druggists, who are a very numerous body in the country, doing a work which is certainly of value, are to be made subject to difficulties which they have not had to experience hitherto, then I am afraid my hon. friend is not considering the greatest good of the greatest number. I have in my hand a telegram-I do not need to read it-in which the representation is made that while my hon. friend's proposed changes may favour a few large manufacturers, it will penalize all the druggists of the country. That is the representation which is made; I do not state it of my own known knowledge. But if it be a fact, then the explanation that this provision will help a few large manufacturers will not be a satisfactory explanation to the druggists.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assure my hon. friend that there is not the slightest intention of helping the manufacturer particularly. Canada is a country of large distances and sparse population, and rightly or wrongly the Canadian people do rely on proprietary medicines. Indeed, in many districts where there are no chemists the people have to rely on these proprietary medicines and the regular pharmaceutical preparations. I would say at once that the provision does make a difference to the chemist who desires to use alcohol in the preparation of his prescriptions; it is the difference between $2.40 and $9. It is hard to get any approximate idea of how much

alcohol the chemists use, but the gentleman to whom I was talking said that he was using about three gallons a year. The truth is that the great majority of chemists buy from the large manufacturing concerns, because in that way they can get it cheaper and better.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is
giving a very good advertisement for the patent medicines. I do not object to that. Some of them are said to be of a trashy character, but a great many of them are very excellent especially for use in the country districts where there is no chemist or doctor near at hand, and in that respect I appreciate their value. But if in the changes proposed my hon. friend is putting new burdens and new taxes upon the druggists of the country, the fact that he is making it a little easier for the large manufacturing concerns is not going to be a satisfactory explanation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
change in regulation, though there is a change in the rate of tax. Last year I was scolded for taxing the poor man's medicine which was made by these very manufacturers; this year I am trying to get away from that and to make the poor man's medicine cheap. Unfortunately there are some chemists who still make up their own alcoholic preparations, and it will cost them just so much more under thns provision. If there is any suggestion my hon. friend has to offer by which the matter could be worked out to better advantage I would be most happy to consider it.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I understand very well the reasons set forth by the hon. Minister of Finance. While I recognize the advisability of protecting the large manufacturing concerns, I do not see why it should be necessary to mqke such a big difference in rates as that between $2.40 and $9. I know that patent medicines are of advantage and are greatly appreciated in the country districts where there are neither chemists nor doctors; but it is not fair to compel three or four thousand druggists to pay a tax of $9, when their competitors, the manufacturers of patent medicines, have to pay only $2.40. It may be a somewhat intricate question, but it seems to me that the hon. minister with his ability in providing for taxes and his experience, should find a means not to so discriminate against druggists. The Government is protecting about thirty large manufacturing concerns at the expense of four thousand chemists. But
CSir Henry Draj
these chemists are not the only people to take into consideration. It is a well known fact that the chemist is not the party who will pay the increased tax on alcohol. He will simply increase the price of his products and it is the consumer, the sick person who goes and gives him the doctor's prescription who will have to pay for the difference. Instead of paying $1 for a bottle of medicine, he will be charged $1.50 or even $1.75. It is always the same old way of protecting a few privileged ones and not those who ought to be protected. Baptiste is always there to pay. The opinion expressed by the hon. leader of the Opposition that the consumers should be protected applies very well to this case. They are always protecting the manufacturer, always favouring a special class, and always calling upon the mass of the people to give out their money.
It does not befit me to tell the minister how he should arrange his taxation, but I venture to call his attention upon an anomaly which entails a very serious injustice. The chemist is called upon to pay the tax, but the ultimate sufferer will be the consumer. It is not reasonable and since taxes have to be imposed, they shou:d be distributed ar fairly as possible among all the people. Let there be no privilege and if the rate must be fixed at $9, let everybody pay that rate. If it is possible to make an exception for some, let us maice it for all, in order that everybody be treated alike.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. gentleman says that there are about 4,000 retail druggists and 30 wholesale druggists in Canada. Would he, being a doctor, know how much alcohol the ordinary druggist uses in the preparation of medicines?


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: (Translation.) I could not give the figures, but to-day, a chemist told me that he bought large quantities of alcohol, having to prepare all his drugs and all his elixirs and that he will have' to stand the adverse competition of large manufacturers who are not called up'on to pay this tax.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am unable to give you any figures, being no chemist, but a doctor; however, I understand that to-day chemists are using a great deal of alcohol because they cannot afford to buy all their products in a manufactured state on account of* competition.- They manufacture tfheir own products and this is why they use such a large quantity of alcohol.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) could tell the committee how much alcohol is used generally by the ordinary druggist in filling prescriptions of medical preparations?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The minister has given me quite an order. As regards my practice,! I buy my drugs from the manufacturers, but we use a large quantity of alcohol for other purposes besides medical preparations. Large quantities are used for experimental purposes. The minister has given a very commendable concession to hospitals. I have not a hospital in my county; we need alcohol every day in very substantial quantities for purposes that he quite understands, and we have to pay the high figure for this alcohol, while those who are better off can go to the hospitals and enjoy cheap alcohol. The manufacturers also get this concession.! Personally, I do not manufacture drugs, and my knowledge of what goes on in the drug stores is limited because I buy my drugs from the manufacturers. I am sorry if I have not given the minister very much information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very
much obliged to the hon. gentleman. Could he help us further? He says that this is a first-rate thing to do for the hospitals. Could he suggest any way in which the doctors could be similarly placed to the druggists?


Alexander William Chisholm: I suppose by extending the same privilege to the doctors and druggists as the minister is giving to the manufacturers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The manufacturers are put under regulations and bond.


Alexander William Chisholm: What are the conditions under which the manufacturers get this privilege?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are
under bonds, and regulations, and the department also appoints men for the purpose of overseeing every single thing the manufacturers do, seeing that they do not use the alcohol for any other purpose. They have to pay all expenses of that supervision.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is it the privilege of the manufacturer to sell the alcohol to the druggist for the same price when it is to be used for this purpose?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This special price is merely for the purpose of manufacturing these medicinal preparations which are supposed to be proper and essential to health.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: It might be inferred from the discussion that, under the provisions that are here made, there was a conflict, between the manufacturer and the retail druggist. As I understand the matter, no provision is made in the resolution in favour of the 10 p.m. manufacturer. There is a provision permitting the sale of alcohol at $2.40, for a purpose, without reference to who uses it for that purpose. The manufacturer has no concession that is not available to any one, a doctor or a druggist, who takes advantage of it in the way that is provided in this resolution.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is to protect the Government iri the use of $2.40 alcohol as against $9 alcohol for beverage purposes. So far as I understand the posh tion of the manufacturing pharmacists, they would be delighted to secure alcohol at $2.40, but as I understand the department's position, it is that all who use the alcohol for the purposes of the exemption set out in the Act must do so under Government control. If there is to he an exemption provided, and alcohol is permitted at $2.40 a gallon, the department feel that they must follow it from the point where it issues, in the Inland Revenue Department, to the point where it is used for the purpose for which the lower duty was granted.
The point I want to emphasize is that there is no provision in the Act in favour of the manufacturer as against the retailer. In the last analysis the difficulty is that the retailer may be operated against for the reason that he may not be able to use sufficient alcohol to pay for the supervision which the regulations that will be drafted under the Act will in all probability require. There is really no difference in principle between the conditions that will exist under this provision in the law and the conditions that have existed heretofore. Manufacturing pharmacists have been obliged to manufacture under Government control for years, for the reason that in manufacturing in bond, non-potable alcohol was permissible, and has been for years-not permissible for the manufacturer, but permissible for any one who manufactured it for the purpose, and who was in a proper position, both with regard

to the equipment of his premises, and with regard to manufacturing a sufficiently large quantity to justify the Government supervision. The regulations of the department have always provided that the personal supervision of the Inland Revenue officer had to he paid for by the party who was using that service. The point I want to emphasize is that so far as the manufacturer and retailer are concerned there is absolutely no conflict of interest, but there may be an operation that will place the retailer in a less favourable position than the manufacturer. That is only as a result of the fact that for reasons whieh he may or may not be able to control- the volume of his business, for instance- the provisions here may operate against him.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has
stated the matter very fairly, yet the law will' work out in this way, that the large manufacturer will gdt his alcohol at $2.40, while., the druggist will have to pay $9. Now that is a striking fact. I grant you that it arises out of the condition of bonding regulations. We can all understand that a large manufacturer may be able to afford the expense of a bonding system which the smaller man cannot afford. May I ask the Minister of Finance at what rate the druggists are getting their alcohol to-day?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 


William Stevens Fielding: Why increase that to $9?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Their rate
was a general rate before. It has to be a general rate unless the Government keeps its hand on that alcohol from start to finish, until the Government sees that it is put to the purpose for which the lower rate of duty is thought to be advisable.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite appreciate the difficulty which my hon. friend has. On the other hand, it is worth remembering that the druggists as a class-there are exceptions; there are even bad politicians- are a fine type of men. They are all licensed by their respective provinces. The medical men of this country also, I say it to their honour, are almost invariably men of high class. Onlv rarely will you find a medical man who re prepared to abuse the law and issue a lot of prescriptions for alcohol for beverage purposes, but these, after all, are the exception. The great mass of the medical men and druggists are law-abiding citizens who will try to meet the regulations, and I think the minister should
	,
devise some means of making the tax lower. I am not able to suggest at the moment just what it should be, but we have the striking fact that the large manufacturer is getting his alcohol for $2.40 while the druggists and doctors who undertake to put up medicines are paying $9. That is a condition which the public generally will think ought not to exist. I do not venture to suggest any change, but I think the minister ought to devise some means of making the tax lower. I think he could trust to a very large degree both the druggists and medical men. I grant you that once in a whole druggists may abuse the law. I have seen cases where medical men have issued a volume of prescriptions under the Ontario and Nova Scotia temperance laws, which made it clear that they were abusing the law, but these, after all, are the exceptions, and we must not make regulations to deal with exceptions. We should try to adapt them to the general conditions of the country. I do not believe that the average medical man and the average druggist needs as much watching and such an expensive bonding system as my hon. friend is going to impose upon them.


John Alexander Stewart: I am in entire accord with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in everything he has said. I want to go a little further, and say this. There is no more reason why the alcohol that goes into the manufacture of a medical preparation- I do not care whether it is manufactured by a druggist, a large manufacturer, or a retailer, or whether it is compounded by a doctor-should be taxed any more than any 'other ingredient in that preparation should be taxed. If it is properly medicated, it should not foe taxed at all. The fact is that alcohol entering into the manufacture of medicinal preparations has been taxed all during the years simply as a result of the fact that alcohol was also available for beverage purposes.


William Stevens Fielding: We have cured that
now by legislation.


John Alexander Stewart: In theory,
perhaps. What I rose to say was that the whole thing to-day is a matter of control, and there is no reason why the control could not foe put upon a basis that would make it available for people who did not require as large a quantity of alcohol as some other people. That is all a matter of control. If the Government can be protected in the use of alcohol,

there is absolutely no argument that I know of that can be advanced against the retailer, the druggist, or the physician who compounds his own medicines, getting alcohol at $2.40, just the same as the man who manufactures it in quantities sufficient to enable him to go to all this expense that is now necessary for the purpose of carrying out the regulations of the Government. It is entirely possible, and I would suggest to the minister that the regulations might be worked out in a way that would be advantageous to all who compound medicines legitimately, and at the sametime protect the Government, because, after all, that is the only question at issue.


Mr. MANION:: In order to clear up the point, I may say a word as one who has practised medicine for quite a few years. The vast majority of druggists or pharmacists buy their medicines ready made up. I am speaking more especially of druggists and pharmacists in Ontario and the West. They buy their tinctures and elixirs, as mentioned by my hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Fontaine), ready made up from the large manufacturing chemists, such as Wampoles, Parke Davis, and various other firms. So that in a great number of cases, particularly in Ontario and the West, the druggist does not compound his own elixirs or tinctures, because the manufacturing chemist can make these preparations much better and more cheaply, and in a more palatable form than can the druggist. Regarding the doctors who prepare their own prescriptions and dispense them, as stated by my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Chisholm), there are a few who will be touched to a certain extent in this respect, but I think that even my hon. friend from Inverness will admit that for most of his medicines he imports his tinctures and elixirs ready prepared. I think I am correct in that. The hon. member signifies his concurrence in the statement. Most doctors in the cities do not dispense their own medicines, but my hon. friend and others who do so, import their own elixirs and tinctures ready prepared, so that these. preparations which go to make up the medicines they would dispense would not be touched. They would not have to pay on them; they escape the tax by buying from the manufacturing chemists. As my hon. friend from Inverness states, there is an occasional case where a_ doctor might wish to give whisky as a stimulant, or might prescribe alcohol for rubbing purposes. That is a case where no doubt those who dispense their own
medicines would be interfered with. And the'same thing applies to druggists selling alcohol for rubbing purposes. I should think it would be a very difficult thing to make a law which would protect the Government and the people against any infractions of it, not so much because the doctors or the druggists would seek to break the law, but because, as occurs in the prohibition parts of the province from which I come, men are continually coming and asking for a bottle of alcohol. Foreigners particularly come and ask for a quart of alcohol, and when they are asked for what purpose the liquor is wanted, they say it is for rheumatism, for rubbing the joints, and so forth. As a matter of fact, before prohibition came into force, I cannot recall any foreigners coming and asking for a prescription for a quart of alcohol for rubbing purposes.


Mr. BUREAU:: It is wanted for rubbing inside.


Robert James Manion: I give that as an illustration of the way in which the law is infringed, not because doctors purposely give prescriptions to persons who want the liquor merely as a beverage, but because men succeed in getting these prescriptions for application and use the alcohol for drinking purposes. The vast majority of doctors and druggists in Ontario and the West buy their tinctures and elixirs ready prepared from the manufacturing chemist, and this tax will not apply to them, with one exception suggested by my hon. friend from Inverness, in the case of giving alcohol for rubbing purposes, in connection with which there may be a disability imposed upon certain people.


Mr. BLAKE:: The point raised by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), has not so far been dealt with, and that is that chemists and druggists should have some better rate than $9. I was speaking to a druggist in the city who makes up his own tincture of iodine, and I learned that he uses one gallon per month. He will be precluded from doing that and will have to buy tincture from the pharmaceutical houses. I do not know that that will make much difference. The pharmaceutical manufacturer can get alcohol for $2.40 a gallon, and the druggist has to pay $9, so that he is precluded from doing any manufacturing whatever. I do not see any way by which you can overcome this difficulty. If you legislate so that what the druggist uses for manufacturing purposes will be charged excise at $2.40,

and what is required for beverage and rubbing purposes will be charged at $9, it . will be impossible to collect the tax. It would simply resolve itself into either giving the druggists the same rate as is charged at present, or a lower rate, or else the flat rate of $9 for all they use. If you say that what is used for manufacturing purposes will be charged at $2.40, some druggists would say that all of the alcohol used was for manufacturing. As the member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) says, they would put in some tincture of gentian or medication, and say that they used the alcohol for manufacturing purposes. As I say, it resolves itself into the question whether the druggists shall be given a rate of $2.40, or an intermediate rate, or whether the rate shall be left as it is. In the West-I speak particularly in regard to Manitoba-alcohol is not obtainable by the public, except on a doctor's prescription for drinking or application. Practically all the alcohol handled in Manitoba is therefore obtained through the prescriptions of doctors, who can prescribe only'12 ounces. Of course, it all comes through the Government vendor and the revenue could be charged on it through the vendor. In Manitoba, the alcohol used for beverage purposes is all bottled before it leaves the Government vendors, but in regard to the other alcohol handled by the druggists, I think it would be only reasonable to leave the rate at $4.40.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure the Minister of Finance is as desirous as any of the ' rest of us to make the taxes reasonable. The druggist is now paying $4.40. What is the matter with the present regulations? If the present rate is sufficient, why increase it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The druggist pays $4.40 in the open market. If we had never raised the duty from $4.40 to $9 the question would never have come up, except in regard to patent medicines, which it was claimed did not show a profit in the year's business, ^nd the prices of which had to be largely increased. We have the right of making regulations which will enable the law to be properly carried out, and if there is any possible way in which this matter can be satisfactorily adjusted, I shall be happy to consider it. At the moment, I confess that I cannot see that there is anything better than the present proposal.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: (Translation.) I think that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne would be the

best. The rate of $9 per gallon which it is proposed to ask of the druggist is out of all proportion to the rate of $2.40 per gallon which is asked from the manufacturer. It seems to me that there should *be an intermediate rate and that the duty of $4.40 which prevailed in the past should be considered as quite sufficient. I realize that the manufacturer has to go to some expense for the putting up of a warehouse and to pay the cost of a government inspector, but even taking such expenditure into account* I think, that there is too great a margin between what he has to pay and the amount of $9 which is required for a druggist. We should adopt a middle term and leave the tax as it is. A druggist is a graduate, an honoured and conscientious man, as well as a physician. We should rely on his good-will and moral sense. Because the manufacturer uses a great deal more of alcohol than the druggist, it is not a reason why the latter should be called upon to pay a heavier tax.
It is not for me to devise the best form of taxation, but the Minister of Finance, who is thoroughly posted on that subject, should be able to settle that difficulty in such a way as to do justice to all parties. This change of rate is certainly a great injustice done to the retailer and as I said a moment ago, it is not the retailer who will pay the tax, but the consumer; it is the public who will be called upon to pay. We pay enough taxes without enacting any for the benefit of a special class. Before this resolution is adopted, I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance to devise some means of doing both parties justice.


Mr. DENIS:: I notice that in the case of spirits manufactured in Canada a duty of $9 is imposed on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, and that on spirits imported there is a duty of $10 a gallon according to the strength of proof. Is the gauge used to measure the alcohol which is manufactured in Canada different from that which is used to gauge the imported alcohol?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No the
method is the same.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I wish to place myself on
record as being opposed, generally speaking, to the increase of duties on alcohol. Formerly the duty on alcohol was $2.40 a gallon. Last year it was raised to $4.40, and this year it has again been raised to $9 in the case of alcohol manufactured in Canada and $10 when it is imported. I have particu-

lar reference to. the alcohol manufactured in Canada, and it seems to me that the imposition of such a heavy duty is based upon a wrong principle. It means tl^t the people of this country will be penalized by being called upon to pay a stiff duty on using that commodity, if alcohol can be called a commodity. The true economic principle is to apply taxation as fairly as possible to everybody. In this case the Government chooses for taxation a particular class of people who are making use of alcohol, and penalizes them by the imposition of an extraordinary tax which nobody would have ever thought of a year or two ago. I am not speaking in defence of alcohol. I am not saying that it should be consumed, but my point is this: If the use of alcohol is to be allowed in this country then people should not be penalized to such an extent because they use it. On the other hand if alcohol is to be prohibited a different measure should be adopted other than the imposition of an exorbitant duty. We must bear in mind the fact that the use of alcohol is either good or bad. It is not very long ago I read an article in a scientific newspaper under the caption of "Is Alcohol food?" the article was being devoted to a discussion of a question of whether or not alcohol is a food. Some people are very strongly opposed to the use of alcohol but the Government permit its importation and therefore take a neutral stand-if I may so express it-on the question; they leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Provincial Governments. The Federal Government, not being opposed to the use of alcohol, should not impose on it such enormous duties; it is an absolutely false principle in economics. We all know that great quantities of alcohol have been imported within the past few weeks and distributed throughout Canada, including the province of Ontario. It was only a few days ago I read that 5,000 cases of alcohol were going into the city of Toronto every day. I would not go the length of offending the minister by suggesting that possibly there may have been a "leak", for I do not think the news was known a minute before it was announced in this House. The reason alcohol was imported in such great quantities by people in Ontario was no doubt by reason of the referendum last April, but in the meantime rich people in that province, to say nothing of people in other provinces, have had the opportunity of filling their cellars with cheap alcohol on which they paid a duty of only $5 per gallon. What I have said about the importation of alcohol is only incidental. The principle is wrong in so far as it imposes on a particular commodity or a particular beverage an enormous duty absolutely out of proportion to duties imposed on other beverages and commodities, and thereby strikes a particular class of the community very severely by forcing them to pay more money to the treasury than other classes who do not make use of those beverages or commodities.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Shall I report the resolution?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is reported, I have been looking with a great deal of anxiety to the clock which I am now facing on the Government side, and which is marking at the present time 7.15.


Jacques Bureau: In the morning.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Perhaps the difference in time may be attributed to the fact that the clock is on the Government side of the House and the Government is behind the times. But I am not forgetting the fact that we left the House at six o'clock this morning, and therefore I respectfully suggest to the minister that after this resolution is passed we should adjourn.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Sir Henry Drayton moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 200 to amend the Inland Revenue Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	,

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means-to consider the following proposed resolution.-Sir Henry Drayton.- Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as amended by Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1920, by striking thereout sections 19BB and 19BBB, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of excise taxes specified therein, and to provide that the following sections he substituted therefor:-
19BB. (1) The following excise taxes shall be imposed, levied and collected on the articles hereinafter specified, namely:-
(a) A tax on playing cards for every fifty-four cards or fraction of fifty-four in each package,-when selling at twenty-four dollars or less per gross packages, eight cents per pack; when selling in excess of twenty-four dollars per gross packages, fifteen cents per pack;
[Stage Direction]
(2)	The excise taxes as imposed by the preceding subsection one shall be payable at the time of importation or when taken out of warehouse for consumption in addition to the present duties of customs or at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer, but shall not apply on playing cards when exported, and shall- be accounted for to Hlis Majesty in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
(3)	(a) A tax of thirty cents per gallon on wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, containing ,mot more than forty per cent of proof spirits;
(b) A tax of three dollars per gallon on champagne and all other sparkling wines.
(4)	The excise taxes as imposed by the preceding subsection three shall be payable at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer, but shall not apply to such wines when exported, and shall be accounted for to His Majesty in accordance with such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
(5)	Every person selling or dealing in the articles upon which taxes are imposed as prescribed by this section may be required by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to take out an annual license therefor, for which license a fee not exceeding two dollars shall be paid and the penalty for neglect or refusal to obtain a license shall be a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars which shall be recoverable upon summary conviction.
2. Resolved, that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
Jacques Bureau: There should not be a tax of $3 a gallon on sparkling wines. In days of depression we want to use these wines-they give a boost to the whole country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would rather gather that my hon. friend already has his stock in. After all this is no higher than the rate of last year.


Jean-Joseph Denis: These rates, if I understand correctly, are the same as last year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was referring to the point raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers. There has been a reduction in some items, for example, in the excise duty on cards.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What about wines?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Wines stand as they were exactly.


Jacques Bureau: Sparkling wines?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are all imported anyway.
19BBB (1) That in addition to the present duties of customs and excise there shall be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of one and one-half per cent on sales and deliveries by Canadian manufacturers or producers, and wholesalers or jobbers, and a tax of two and one-half per cent on the duty paid value of the

goods imported, but in respect of sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers the excise tax payable shall be three per cent and on goods imported by retailers or consumers the excise tax payable on the duty paid value shall be four per cent.
Provided that in respect of lumber an excise tax of three per cent shall be imposed, levied and collected on sales and deliveries by the Canadian manufacturer and further excise tax will not be payable on resale.
Provided also that the taxes specified in this section shall not apply to sales or importations of:-
Bread; flour and oatmeal when in packages weighing not less than forty-eight pounds each; animals living; live poultry; meats and poultry, fresh; milk including buttermilk; cream; butter; cheese; oleomargarine, margarine, but-terine or other substitutes for butter; lard, lard compound and similar substances, made from animal or vegetable stearins or oils; eggs; vegetables, fruit, grains and seeds in their natural state ; hay ; straw ; hops ; nursery stock; chicory, raw or green; bees; honey; sugar; molasses; other farm produce sold by the individual farmer of his own production; ice; fish and products thereof not canned or medi-oated ; ores of metals of all kinds; fuel of all kinds; gold and silver in ingots, blocks, bars, drops, sheets or plates unmanufactured; British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin; logs and round unmanufactured timber; fence posts, railroad ties, pulpwood, tan bark, and other articles the product of the forest when produced and sold by the individual settler or farmer; newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semi-monthly magazines and weekly literary papers unbound; materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships; ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade; calcium carbide; electricity ; gas manufactured from coal, calcium carbide ; or oil for illuminating or heating . purposes ; ma-terials for use solely in the manufacture of oleomargarine or any substitute for butter or lard or for the production of oot-tolene; artificial limbs and parts thereof; artificial eyes ; donations of clothing and books for charitable purposes; settlers' effects; War Veterans' badges; memorials or monuments erected in memory of soldiers who fell in the Great War; articles imported for the use of the Governor General; articles imported for the personal or official use of Consuls General who are natives or citizens of the country they represent and who are not engaged in any other business or profession; Bibles, prayer-books, psalms and hymn-books, religious tracts, and Sunday school lesson pictures, and the Governor in Council shall have power to add to the foregoing list of articles exempted from the excise taxes on sales, as he may deem it expedient or necessary to exempt from the said excise taxes;
, Provided further that the excise taxes specified in this section shall not be payable on goods exported, or on sales of goods made to the order of each individual customer by a business which sells exclusively by retail, under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue who shall be sole judge as to the classification of a business; and a drawback may be granted of ninety-nine per cent of the said taxes paid on materials used, wrought into or attached to articles exported.
(2)	That the Minister may require every manufacturer, producers, wholesaler or jobber to take out an annual license for the purposes

aforesaid, and may prescribe a fee therefor, not exceeding two dollars, and the penalty for neglect or refusal shall Ibe a sum of exceeding one thousand dollars.
(3)	That any such tax, costs or penalties may, at the option of the Minister, be recovered and imposed in the Exchequer Court of Canada or in any other Court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of His Majesty,
(4)	That the provisions of this resolution respecting a tax on sales shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There are one or two matters to which I would like to draw attention in connection with this clause. Paragraph 1 provides for a 3 per cent tax on goods manufactured in this country. There is a belief in many quarters-and opposition to the idea-that this tax is to he absorbed in the price of the goods. I do not see in the resolution, however, any provision to that end. I have had several telegrams about the matter, and personally I think it would be a mistake to have the amount of the tax absorbed in the price of the goods. If the amount of the tax is shown on the invoice, one and one-half per cent by the manufacturer and one and one-half per cent by the wholesaler, everyone will know exactly what he is paying, but if the tax is absorbed in the price of the goods,' more than the actual tax might be collected. I think, therefore, that the procedure should be as it was last year. Another thing: taking bran as an illustration, if a man in Calgary buys a carload of bran from one of the mills near that city, he pays a 3 per cent tax on a price, which, for the purpose of illustration, we will put at $16 a ton, or 48 cents. But if he buys in Montreal, at Montreal rates of freight the price would be $31.50 and he would pay something over 90 cents on the ton. I think that the price, therefore, Should be charged as at the place of debarkation, because I understand it is the custom of many shippers of flour and feeds to prepay the freight and charge it to the customer. If what I suggest is not done, local millers in Ontario will be prejudiced, in my judgment. Then, it is provided that flour and oatmeal when in packages weighing not less than 48 pounds each shall be exempt. That means that flour and oatmeal in packages weighing less than 48 pounds each will have to pay the tax. Now, the great mass of the people buy flour, for instance, in what are called 25 and 50-pound sacks-really 24 and 48-pound
sacks, being one-eighth and one-quarter of a barrel respectively. When we tax these smaller packages and exempt the others we are putting the tax on the man who buys in the smaller quantities. Take, for instance, the case of oatmeal in packages. It is true that oatmeal can be bought in bulk at nearly all grocery stores, but packages are supposed to be more cleanly, and in these days when people are so much frightened by germs and so on they prefer to buy their oatmeal in packages. Very often-not always, hut very often-you go into a store and find the cat sleeping in the oatmeal barrel, if there is no lid on it.
I only give that as a rough illustration to indicate why the people prefer to buy the oatmeal in packages. Nearly everybody uses oatmeal, and I suggest to the minister that these smaller packages containing oatmeal and flour be also exempt from the tax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps I
had better take the last point first. There are many different ways of trying to approach a very simple problem. For example, take that one problem of trying to make things cheap and trying to get people to buy cheaply. It is ridiculous how easy it is to twist anything which is said in that direction towards making something all the more expensive. Notwithstanding what has been said, the fact is that the exemptions under this sales tax cover all rough essential foods. The fact is that meats, milk, butter, bread are free; the essentials are absolutely looked after. There are some things which are bought, which .cannot be eaten and which cost money. Take the question of boxed goods referred to by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Gordon) in his speech on the Budget. The idea in question with boxed goods was to discourage the purchase of food products in cartons when a very considerable portion of the cost is on account of the carton which cannot be eaten. As a matter of fact, to-day clean oatmeal is selling at 5, 6 and 7 cents a pound. A carton containing 22 ounces of oatmeal sells for 15 cents a carton, resulting in a charge of something like 12 cents a pound as against 5, 6 or 7 cents if the food content is bought without the carton. In larger cartons, the discrepancy is not as great. I think the standard carton, is 56 onces, or practically 3J pounds, and it sells relatively, of course, at a lesser rate on contents than the smaller carton does. I think the provision as drafted originally was wrong in that it had a restriction of 48 pounds. I think this ought to be low

enough to cover the smallest sack or ordinary cheap container which is put up. My idea was to cover the smallest cheap container.
Another thing which has been entirely overlooked is in connection with the quantity of foodstuffs bought. This has been absolutely innocently, but nevertheless entirely misrepresented, because this tax is not a tax on the retailer whatever, and representations to the effect that the man's few pounds that he buys from the retailer are going to be taxed are absolutely beside the mark. He can buy in bulk, just as little as he wants, at any time without any tax at all. After having drawn attention to the fact that if you have things done up in cartons, you must pay for your cartons; that at the present moment standard oatmeal, just as good as that which is put up in cartons, can be bought at prices ranging from 5, 6 and 7 cents a pound, while some of the manufactured products are sold in cartons in this city at as high as 12 cents a pound, and in view of the fact that millers are turning out smaller sacks, I am inclined to think that, perhaps, the best thing to do is to amend entirely this present proposition. The amendment which, I think, would give full justice to the considerations urged by the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) would be to strike out the words after the word "oatmeal" on line 9 of page 8, "when in packages weighing not less than 48 pounds each," and to insert the words, "including rolled oats." I find that rolled oats are not covered by the definition of oatmeal, but, as a matter of fact, the food is practically the same; there is merely a difference in a primary process.


Mr. GORDON:: Do I understand the minister to say that that covers all package breakfast foods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


George Gordon: Oatmeal and rolled
oats?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. It does not cover anything which is a trade patent formula. *


George Gordon: Like puffed rice, puffed
wheat.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It covers
merely the rough essentials.


George Gordon: The custom throughout
the country has been that families reduce their buying of rolled oats and oatmeal in the hot months of summer. For probably six months in the year the sale of rolled fSir Henry Drayton.]	[DOT]
oats and oatmeal to the ordinary family is nil and these other foods are
11 p.m. used because of the heating qualities of oatmeal and rolled oats. Therefore, there is a tremendous trade in this other class of foods and that is being taxed, although it is just as essential for the people to buy and use that as to buy oatmeal and rolled oats in the winter time. I would urge very strongly that these package foods be included too, because, although they may be patented foods, they constitute one of the most essential elements in the pantry of the family. In addition to that they are used for morning meal, noon meal, food for children, and evening meal. They are foods that are used very largely throughout Ontario and, indeed, throughout the whole of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: It is getting rather late, and as this resolution is somewhat contentious, perhaps the minister would consent to letting it stand and reporting progress. It involves a very wide measure of taxation upon the food of the people, notwithstanding the statement of the minister that foodstuffs are free. I would like to enlarge somewhat upon that point, and I think I could convince the minister that he is taxing the food of the people, also that he is retarding, if not destroying, construction and development throughout this country.	.
The minister, made the statement a few moments ago that this tax was imposed with a view to discouraging people from buying things which they should not buy


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have suggested that that should be dropped. Doe's the hon- gentleman desire to retain it?


James Alexander Robb: Last year the minister took the view that he could curb extravagance in this country by imposing luxury taxes, but he found that those taxes practically destroyed business, and on the eve of the Christmas holidays, in an attempt to restore business, he was compelled to wipe out those taxes. All through this resolution there is a tax on the food of the people, an unfair tax. Take the tax on lumber and on material that goes into the construction of a house or barn. I am told by a responsible contractor that on a $5,000 house, which is not an extravagant average price, the materials going into that house represent $3,500. The minister proposes to put a tax of $105 against that house; there is no question about that. The minister puts a tax of $105 against

the building of a house at a time when every one is calling for more houses in this country. The same is true with regard to the building of barns throughout the country. I am told by the same contractor that the average cost of the material going into a piodern barn would be 80 per cent of a $2,000 building. The minister proposes to put a tax on that $1,600 worth of materials of $48. He is hampering production to that extent.
Coming to foodstuffs, which the minister claims are free, the minister is providing here that the ingredients required for the manufacture of oleomargarine are exempt from taxation. Having adopted that principle, why should he hamper the agricultural industry of this country by putting a tax on all the materials required for the production of butter, cheese and meats-the food of the people? There is to be a tax on mill stuffs which are required by the farmers for the production of milk and butter. Here, again, the minister is taxing production of the foodstuffs of the people. If our farmers are to com-, pete with the farmers of the United States -hon. gentlemen opposite are very much alarmed occasionally, in Budget debates, over the competition of the United States -they should be put upon an equal basis. There is no tax whatever on any kind of mill feed that the farmer of the United [DOT] States requires, and to that extent the farmer of the United States will be able to feed his stock more cheaply than the Canadian farmer.
The minister says that flour is free. But he is taxing the container; he is putting a tax on the bags and barrels required by the mills of this country, and to that extent he is discriminating against the Canadian farmer as compared with the farmer of the United States. The minister may say that there is a refund on the export business, but I say that all this puts us on an unfair basis as compared with our neighbours to the south with whom we have such close competition. The minister may also ask: Ho welse are you going to raise the revenue? We upon this side of the House contend that we would start at the other end: We would reduce expenditure. For all the revenue the minister is going to get out of this tax, he may as well wipe it out altogether. That would at least do something to help popularize the Government of which he is an honoured and a very genial supporter.
I shall not detain the committee any longer, but I think the minister might do
well to sleep over these suggestions, and come along at the next sitting of the House and make a clean sheet of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was the understanding, to which I was going to give the fullest effect, that we should adjourn at 11 o'clock. I am quite willing to move that the committee rise.


William Stevens Fielding: I would first draw
my hon. friend's attention to another item which he can take into consideration in the meantime. It is an item over which I have had considerable trouble with the department more than once. The minister is providing exemption for materials for the repair of ships generally and for ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade. A question has arisen respecting the smaller class of craft, practically fishing boats and boats of that type. There has been some confusion in the various custom offices in the country as to just what was meant. I think it is intended to mean fishing boats and small boats of that character. Moreover, I think that the manufacturer of that class of boats ought not to be compelled to take out a license. That, I believe, is the view of the department, but there has been some confusion, and I would suggest that when the hon. gentleman is framing this clause again he leaves no room for discussion hereafte'r on this subject.


Mr. PROULX:: I see that butter and
eggs are exempt from the sales tax, but not milk powder, condensed milk, and ice cream. These latter were exempt last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So were many other things that are now being taxed.


Edmond Proulx: I submit that these are
articles of food and should be treated the same as butter and cheese.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never said
that all foods are exempt. They are not.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Saturday, May 21, 1921.